Forming impressions of others (i.e., person
perception: the process of forming impressions of others
Key sources of information
Appearance
Verbal statements
Actions
Nonverbal messages
Situations
Snap judgments versus systematic judgments
Snap judgments may not be accurate
Systematic judgments are made in forming
impressions of people who can affect our welfare, happiness
Attributions: inferences that people draw about
the causes of their own behavior, others' behavior, and events
Three key dimensions of attributions (see Chapter 5 for
detailed discussion)
Internal/external
Stable/unstable
Controllability/uncontrollability
Types of attributions people make about others can have
major impact on social interactions
People are selective about making attributions; most
likely to make them in specific cases
When unusual events occur
Events have personal consequences
Motives underlying someone's behavior are suspicious
Perceiver expectations
Confirmation bias: tendency to behave toward
others in ways that confirm your hypotheses about them
Memory processes can contribute to confirmatory biases
Need for accuracy may reduce tendency
Self-fulfilling prophecy: process whereby
expectations about a person cause the person to behave in ways that
confirm the expectations
Term coined by sociologist Robert Merton in 1948
Three steps involved in a self-fulfilling prophecy
Perceiver has initial impression of someone (target
person)
Perceiver behaves toward target person in a way that
is consistent with expectations
Target person adjusts behavior to perceiver's actions
Perceiver mistakenly attributes target person's behavior
to internal causes
Limits on self-fulfilling prophecy
Target person can work to change perceiver's beliefs
Target persons who are confident of own views are less
likely to be influenced by perceiver's beliefs
Cognitive distortions
Categorizing
People tend to perceive those similar to themselves as
members of in-group ("us") and those dissimilar as members of
out-group ("them")
Categorizing has three important consequences
Attitudes tend to be more favorable toward in-group
members
People tend to see out-group members as being more
similar to each other than they really are
Heightens visibility of out-group members when only a
few of them are in a large group
Out-group members viewed as more distinctive, seen
as having more influence
Distinctiveness makes it more likely that
stereotypes will be invoked
Stereotypes: widely held beliefs that people
have certain characteristics because of their membership in a particular
group
Most prevalent kinds involve gender, age, and ethnicity
Also based on physical appearance (e.g.,
what-is-beautiful-is-good stereotype)
The persistence of stereotypes
They are functional in the sense that they reduce
complex information
Selectivity in social perception, confirmatory biases
play a role
Self-fulfilling prophecy is a factor
Fundamental attribution error: the tendency to
explain other people's behavior as the result of personal, rather than
situational, factors
Different from stereotyping because it's based on actual
behavior
Cultural values seem to promote different attributional
errors
Defensive attribution: the tendency to blame
victims for their misfortune, so that one feels less likely to be
victimized in a similar way
Helps people maintain their belief in a "just world"
Allows people to unfairly attribute undesirable traits
to victims (e.g., incompetence, foolishness)
Key themes in person perception
Efficiency
People tend to make judgments quickly
Errors occur with quick judgments
Selectivity
Expectations influence perceptions of others
Ambiguous behavior in someone increases influence of our
expectations
Consistency
Primacy effect occurs when initial information
carries more weight than subsequent information
Reasons for potency of first impressions
People tend to see what they expect to see
Confirmatory biases may lead people to discount later
information
The problem of prejudice
Prejudice versus discrimination
Prejudice: a negative attitude toward members of
a group
Discrimination: behaving differently, usually
unfairly, toward the members of a group
Tend to go together, but there is no necessary
correspondence
Blatant or "old-fashioned" discrimination has declined in
past 40 years, but modern discrimination has emerged
People privately harbor negative attitudes toward minority
groups (including women), but express them only when they feel that such
views are justified or that it's safe to do so
Similar distinctions found in European countries as well
Causes of prejudice
Cognitive distortions
Fundamental attribution error
Defensive attributions
The authoritarian personality
Early research by Robert Adorno and colleagues
identified personality type
Characterized by prejudice toward any group perceived to
be different from oneself
Competition between groups
Based on early research by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues
Lack of jobs, other resources fosters competition
between social groups and breeds fear of losing status
Threats to social identity
Threats to social identity are likely to provoke
prejudice, discrimination
Most common response is to show in-group favoritism
Reducing prejudice
Cognitive strategies
Stereotypes may kick in automatically, unintentionally
But can intentionally inhibit stereotyping, prejudice
with cognitive effort
Inter-group contact
Based on principle of superordinate goals (or
cooperative interdependence): requiring two groups to work together
to achieve a mutual goal
Four necessary conditions for reducing inter-group
hostility
Groups must work together for common goal
Must be successful outcomes to cooperative
efforts
Group members must have opportunity to establish
meaningful connections
Must ensure equal status contact
The power of persuasion
Persuasion defined
Persuasion: the communication of arguments and
information intended to change another person's attitudes
Attitudes: beliefs and feelings about people,
objects, and ideas
Beliefs are thoughts and judgments
The "feeling" component refers to positive/negative
aspect of attitude, as well as strength of feeling
The elements of the persuasion process
Source: person who sends a communication
Credibility of source is important factor
Expertise can give a person credibility
Trustworthiness of source is even more
important than expertise
Likability also increases effectiveness of source
Physical attractiveness can affect likability
Similarity of source to target also an important
factor
Message: the information transmitted by the
source
Two-sided arguments generally more effective than
one-sided arguments
One-sided arguments work only when audience is
uneducated about issue
One-sided arguments also work when audience is
favorably disposed to message
Arousal of fear may increase effectiveness of message
Generating positive feelings can be effective
Receiver: person to whom the message is sent
Forewarning may reduce effectiveness
People display disconfirmation bias when evaluating
arguments incompatible with their existing beliefs
Discrepancy between receiver's initial position on issue
and position advocated by source is factor
Persuasion tends to work best when discrepancy is
moderate
Messages that fall outside receiver's latitude of
acceptance tend to be ineffective
Within latitude of acceptance, larger discrepancy
should produce greater attitude change
Channel: the medium through which the message is
sent
The whys of persuasion
According to elaboration likelihood model, an
individual's thoughts about a persuasive message (rather than the message
itself) determine whether attitude change will occur
When people are distracted, tired, etc., they may be
persuaded by cues along the peripheral route, the usual route of
persuasion
With the central route, the receiver cognitively
elaborates on the message
Two requirements for central route to override peripheral
route
Receivers must be motivated to process message
Receivers must be able to understand message
Attitudes formed via central route are longer lasting
Conformity and compliance pressures
Conformity (when people yield to real or imagined
social pressure) and compliance pressures
The dynamics of conformity, illustrated by classic
experiment in which Solomon Asch examined effect of group pressure on
conformity in unambiguous situations
Participants varied considerably in tendency to conform,
although 28% conformed on more than half the trials
Two important factors were group size and unanimity
Conformity increase as group size increased from two
to four, peaked at seven, then leveled off
Group size had little effect in presence of another
dissenter, underscoring importance of unanimity
Conformity versus compliance
Later studies indicated that Asch's participants were
not really changing their beliefs
Theorists concluded that Asch's experiments evoked a
type of conformity, called compliance (when people yield to
social pressure in their public behavior, even though their private
beliefs have not changed)
Resisting conformity pressures
Individuals who feel insecure about status in a social
group are more likely to comply when peers put down members of
out-groups
Good idea to be mindful of social pressures in
one's life
Pressure from authority figures
The dynamics of obedience Stanley Milgram
demonstrated the power of obedience (a form of compliance that occurs
when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of
authority)
A "teacher" (participant) was instructed to administer
electric shocks to "learner" (confederate)
Although apparatus was fake, participant thought
he was administering increasing strong shocks
Twenty-six of 40 participants (65%) administered all 30
levels of shock
Factors producing obedient behavior
Demands on participants were escalated gradually
Authority figure claimed responsibility
Subjects experienced shift in perspective, evaluating
their actions on how well they were living up to expectations of
authority figure
Study has been consistently replicated
Ethics of procedure are questionable; study would be
difficult to replicate today
To obey or not to obey
Whistle-blowing refers to variety of actions
taken by employees to protest or change ethically questionable
organizational practices
Because risks of whistle-blowing are high, few people
are willing to do it
Factors prompting people to act
Individuals must be aware of problem
People must perceive problem as serious and believe
they are capable of taking effective action
Social support is important
People must take responsibility for acting and follow
through
Individuals who are aware of problem may tell
themselves that someone else will do something about it
Fatal social influence
Contemporary examples
Jonestown massacre in Guyana, South America in 1978
Although a small minority of Jim Jones's followers
refused to cooperate, most took their own lives as part of mass
suicide
Total of 913 Americans died, including more than 200
children
Fire at Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas in 1993
Armed standoff lasted 51 days
Fire killed over 80 adults and children
Mass suicide of Heaven's Gate cult in 1997
Persuasion and social influence at work
Explanations of Jonestown massacre focus on Jones's
powers of persuasion and social influence
Members were vulnerable to Jones's message (receiver
factors)
Jones was perceived as an expert who was credible and
trustworthy (source factors)
Jones had control over information presented to
followers (message factors)
Similarities in other cases of fatal social influence
Culture and social influence
People in Asian countries tend to view conformity and
obedience more positively than Americans
People in countries where conformity is valued also show
higher levels of conformity behavior
Findings are consistent with collectivist versus
individualist orientation
Application: Seeing through social influence tactics
The foot-in-the-door technique
The foot-in-the-door technique: getting people
to agree to a small request to increase the chances that they will agree
to a larger request later
Research supports the effectiveness of this strategy
The door-in-the-face technique
The door-in-the-face technique involves making a
very large request that is likely to be turned down to increase the
chances that people will agree to a smaller request later
Technique works for two reasons
People are swayed by contrast effects
Targets feel obliged to reciprocate "concession"
Using the reciprocity norm
Reciprocity norm: the rule that one should pay
back in kind what one receives from others
Norm is so powerful, it works even when:
Gift is uninvited
Gift comes from someone you dislike
Gift results in an uneven exchange
The lowball technique
Lowball technique: involves getting someone to
commit to an attractive proposition before its hidden costs are
revealed
Derived from common practice in automobile sales
The scarcity principle
Reactance occurs when a person's freedom to
behave in a certain way is impeded, thus leading to efforts to restore the
threatened freedom
Effect explains why companies often try to create the
impression that their products are in scarce supply