Social Perception: How We Understand Others - Psychological Studies PDF

CHAPTER 4 Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Others  SOCIAL PERCEPTION Social perception : How we form impressions of other people and make inferences about them.. Initial judgments less than 100 milliseconds  SOCIAL PER...

CHAPTER 4 Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Others  SOCIAL PERCEPTION Social perception : How we form impressions of other people and make inferences about them.. Initial judgments less than 100 milliseconds  SOCIAL PERCEPTION Important source of information about people = nonverbal behavior. facial expression tone of voice gestures body position the use of touch eye gaze  SOCIAL PERCEPTION Federal leaders debate Trudeau-Trump hand shake Expert analysis  NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR Many uses Express emotion  NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR Convey attitudes Communicate personality traits  NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR Facilitate verbal communication Repeat or complement spoken message  NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR Substitute for spoken message  SOCIAL PERCEPTION Empathy building: observing other peoples’ non-verbal behaviors help us feel empathy? The mirror neuron system: respond to both observed and self-produced actions G di Pellegrino (1992)  SOCIAL PERCEPTION Modest evidence may be involved in empathy No evidence of causal role or are necessary (Bekkali et al., 2019).  SOCIAL PERCEPTION Let’s practice! Truth or lie!  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Most important non-verbal communication Darwin’s universality hypothesis Primary emotions conveyed by the face encoded and decoded in the same way across humans. Species-specific not culture-specific. Supporting Evidence Matsumoto Study Optic needs hypothesis Ekman & Friesen (1971, 1972) study  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Ekman & Friesen (1971, 1972) study – Fore tribe of New Guinea. “ The enemy approaches ” – They are Angry “ Friends have come ” – They are Happy “ A child has died ” – They are Sad Ekman  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Ekman et al., (1975): US, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Argentina, New Guinea 1. happiness= 82% participants in each culture 2. Anger 2. surprise 4. fear= 54% participants in Argentina & New Guinea 5. disgust= 44% participants in New Guinea 6. sadness  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Russell et al., (1993): Showed pictures of six basic emotion and contempt to participants in Japan, Greece & Canada Had to name, not match Happiness identified by most participants 14% of Japanese participant could name fear Contempt not identified in any country  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Other emotions that have been considered as universal? 7. contempt ? 8. pride? 9. embarrassment 10. anxiety 11. shame 12. guilt 13. pain  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Critiques: Inconsistent findings? 1. when to consider universal? 2. matching vs. naming Russell et al., (1993): Showed pictures of six basic emotion & contempt to participants in Japan, Greece & Canada Had to name, not match Happiness identified by most participants 14% of Japanese participant could name fear Contempt not identified in any country 3. contextual information  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: CONTEXT Context: Russell & Fehr (1987)  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: CONTEXT Context: Russell & Fehr (1987)  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: CONTEXT Carroll& Russell (1986) She has been rear ended on way to an important meeting  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: CONTEXT Aviezer et al., 2008 Anger in context of determination Disgust in context of confusion Sadness in context of fear  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Masuda et al. (2008): Culture influences perceptions of facial expressions American & Japanese participants  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Ito et al.,(2012): Contextual background & perceptions of facial expressions Congruent Incongruent Incongruent Congruent Canadian & Japanese participants  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: ACCURACY Accuracy can be decreased due to 1. affect blends (e.g., fear + surprise) 2. display rules culturally determined anger/powerful emotions display for men strong emotions particularly negative emotions display discouraged in collectivistic cultures  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: ACCURACY 3. gender differences positive & negative emotions women better § attachment promotion hypothesis (Hampson et al., 2007) § Facial feedback hypothesis Davis et al., (2010). The effects of BOTOX injections on emotional experience  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: ACCURACY Carbon (2020): Wearing Face Masks Strongly Confuses Counterparts in Reading Emotions  FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: ACCURACY Carbon (2020) Neutrality Sadness Happiness Surprise Disgust Anger Fear Paddy Ross* Emily George FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: ACCURACY Ross & George (2022) :Are Face Masks a Problem for Emotion Recognition? Paddy Ross* Emily George FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: ACCURACY Ross & George (2022) :Are Face Masks a Problem for Emotion Recognition? Not When the Whole Body Is Visible.  NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOURS: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Many non-verbal behaviors specific to a culture 1. Eye contact & gaze 2. Personal space & touch 3. Hand and head gestures nodding head “no” in Greece& Bulgaria  CULTURAL EMBLEMS Non-verbal gestures that have a well-established meaning in a given culture.  NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION Emails: Kruger et al., 2005 Absence of non-verbal increases the likelihood of misunderstandings  FIRST IMPRESSIONS Initial judgments based on facial expressions less than 100 milliseconds Tendency to form impressions on facial impressions around 3 years of age Beard=trustworthy, baby face=naïve, warm, submissive Thin Slices of Behavior: brief video or auditory clips 1 second to 5 minutes, sampled from longer streams of behavior raters are able to make better than chance accuracy judgments about the person being shown or heard. (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1990) Thin slices of behavior  IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES Type of schema people use to group various kinds of personality traits together. Fill in the blanks with schemas of what traits go together Beautiful = sincere, considerate, successful High self esteem = intelligent, conscientious, emotionally stable shy= unintelligent Obesity?  IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES IPT: Schemas of what traits go together Western culture = artistic IPT Chinese culture = shi gu IPT  IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES IPTs influenced by language ( Hoffman et al., 1986) English monolinguals: read in English, embellished artistic character not Shi gu English- Chinese bilinguals-English: read in English, embellished artistic character not Shi gu English- Chinese bilinguals-Chinese: read in Chinese: embellished Shi gu character not artistic  CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS Attribution theory: how we explain cause for own behaviors and behaviors observed in others. Heider (1958; father of attribution theory) internal (personal characteristics) external (situational factors) Attributions & marriages  COVARIATION MODEL Covariation model (Kelly, 1967, 1973) We collect data on multiple variables and behaviors in the past to categorize other peoples’ behavior as external or internal. consensus distinctiveness consistency  COVARATION MODEL Consensus information about the extent to which other people behave the same way as the actor does toward the same stimulus. Distinctiveness the extent to which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different stimuli. Consistency the extent to which the behaviour between one actor and one stimulus is the same across time and circumstances. COVARATION MODEL  COVARIATION MODEL Research findings: 1. Heavier reliance on consistency & distinctiveness than on consensus. 2. Information on all three, may not be available. Criticism: Model assumes people think systematically & logically  FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR The tendency to emphasize internal factors and downplay external factors as causes of people’s behavior. Consequences: Blaming the victim Could exercise control Canadian judge asks a sexual assault complainant why she could not "keep your knees together” (2014)  FAE:PERCEPTUAL SALIENCE Point of focus, usually on person and not the situation. Information about situational causes may be unavailable or difficult to interpret accurately.  FAE:PERCEPTUAL SALIENCE Taylor & Fiske, 1975  FAE: PERCEPTUAL SALIENCE Lassiter et al., 2007 Judges and police officers saw videotaped confession Suspect focused Detective focused Equally focused on two Suspect focused rated as voluntary significantly more than in other conditions  FAE: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Two-step process 1.internal attribution is made 2. adjust this attribution by considering the situation, may be skipped Cultural differences ?  ACTOR-OBSERVER BIAS American & Korean participants Self: both groups situational attributes Other: ?  SELF SERVING ATTRIBUTIONS When people’s self esteem is threatened make self-serving attributions Successes – attributed to internal factors Failures – attributed to external factors  ATTRIBUTIONS & SELF-ESTEEM Self serving bias & group work ( Ross & Sicoly 1979 Van Winkle et al., 2008 Campers’ perception of their impact on environment Culture & self-serving bias Strongest in US and other Western countries Very low/absent in Asian countries Self critical attributions  DEFENSIVE ATTRIBUTIONS Defensive Attributions: to avoid feelings of vulnerability and mortality. Unrealistic optimism  DEFENSIVE ATTRIBUTIONS Belief in a Just World Bad things happen to bad people/stupid mistake, therefore, will not happen to me  DEFENSIVE ATTRIBUTIONS Consequences of Just world beliefs Victim Blaming I am not vulnerable World is not random, higher power is in-charge Good things will also happen Efforts and good work pays off Function Maintain motivation and plan ahead DEFENSIVE ATTRIBUTIONS