Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People Chapter 4 PDF

Chapter 4 Social Perception How We Come to Understand Other People Chapter Outline and Learning Objectives Nonverbal Communication The Covariation Model: Internal versus External 4.1 How do people use nonverbal cues to understand others? Attribut...

Chapter 4 Social Perception How We Come to Understand Other People Chapter Outline and Learning Objectives Nonverbal Communication The Covariation Model: Internal versus External 4.1 How do people use nonverbal cues to understand others? Attributions Facial Expressions of Emotion The Fundamental Attribution Error: People as Personality Psychologists Culture and the Channels of Nonverbal Communication Self-Serving Attributions First Impressions: Quick but Long-Lasting The “Bias Blind Spot” 4.2 How quickly do first impressions form, and why do they persist? Culture and Social Perception The Lingering Influence of Initial Impressions 4.4 What role does culture play in processes of social perception and attribution? Using First Impressions and Nonverbal Communication to Our Advantage Holistic versus Analytic Thinking Cultural Differences in the Fundamental Causal Attribution: Answering the “Why” Question Attribution Error 4.3 How do people determine why others do what they do? Culture and Other Attributional Biases The Nature of the Attribution Process 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 105 Other people are not easy to figure out. Why are they the way they are? Why do they do what they do? The frequency and urgency with which we pose these questions are clear in a touching story, sent in years ago by a reader to the New York Times. The reader explains that a female friend who had recently ended a relationship had decided to throw away a bag containing her ex’s love letters, cards, and poems. She was stunned when her former boyfriend called the next day to ask why she had done this. How had he found out? It turns out that a homeless man found the letters while going through the garbage, read the correspondence, and became curious about how the two lovers’ relationship had come to such an end. He went to a pay phone and called the boyfriend to find out, after finding his number in one of the letters. “I would have called you sooner,” he told the former boyfriend, “but this was the first quarter I was given today” (De Marco, 1994). The homeless man was down on his luck—no home, no money, reduced to rifling through garbage cans—and yet that endless fascination with the human condition still asserted itself. He needed to know why the couple broke up. He even spent his only quarter to find out. We all have a fundamental fascination with explaining other people’s behavior. But the reasons why people behave as they do are usually hidden from us. Unfortunately, we can’t read other people’s minds. All we have to go on is observ- able behavior: what people do, what they say, their facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice. We rely on subtle cues and first impressions, putting together these puzzle pieces as best we can, hoping they will lead to reasonably accurate and useful conclusions. Our desire to understand other people is so fundamental that it carries over into our hobbies and recreational lives. We go to movies, read novels, eavesdrop on conver- sations, and watch people flirt at bars because thinking about the behavior even of strangers and fictional characters fascinates us (Weiner, 1985). This basic aspect of human cognition has been exploited brilliantly by reality television producers, who cast television shows with real people, not actors, and film them as they go about their lives. You can watch Teen Mom or Real Housewives, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, or The Bachelor. Why are these shows so popular? Because we enjoy trying to figure people out. Consider Duck Dynasty, the hugely popular show depicting daily exploits of the Robertsons, a colorful, bearded clan from the Louisiana bayou whose family business making hunting products has led to a real-life rags-to-riches story. Or the NPR podcast Serial, which by the end of 2014 was attracting over a million listeners per week tuning into the latest in the unfolding investigation of the death of Hae Min Lee, the murder conviction of her ex-boyfriend Adnan Syed, and the nuanced relationships of those in their former social circle. As we watch and listen to shows such as these, with characters both similar and very different from ourselves, we form impressions of the individuals in question. We make attributions about them; that is, we reach conclusions about who we think they are and why they do what they do. These attributions help us understand their motivations, choices, and behavior—all of which are topics in this chapter. And it isn’t just reality television that seeks to capture this obsession we have with the characters around us. More “traditional” forms of television have also become grittier and driven by more complex characters in recent years (Martin, 2013). Who can forget the frenzy surrounding the final episodes of Breaking Bad in 2013? Whether they had been watching the series all along or had to binge on Netflix to catch up, it seemed like most of America had little more on their minds than the enthralling saga of chemistry-teacher-turned-druglord Walter White. Some of the questions that liter- ally kept viewers up at night were plot driven, as we waited to find out what would happen to Walter, his family, and various criminal associates. But the truly fascinating 14:42:23. 106 Chapter 4 and even polarizing aspects of the show were character related: Had mild-mannered Mr. White undergone a total transformation to become Heisenberg, the crystal meth king of New Mexico, or had those tendencies for calculated deception and ruth- lessness been simmering underneath all along? Who in Walter’s inner circle was an innocent casualty of his turn toward crime, and who was just as culpable as he was? And just whom were we supposed to be rooting for anyway? If you have any doubt that the Breaking Bad phenomenon owed a tremendous debt to our fascination with what makes other people tick, look no further than the experience of Anna Gunn, the actress who played Skyler, Walter’s wife. Gunn’s character became such a controver- sial flash point for viewers—some empathizing with her plight, many others exco- riating her as the show’s true villain—that she felt moved to publicly sort through these increasingly heated viewer reactions in an op-ed piece titled “I Have a Character Issue” (Gunn, 2013). You don’t have to be a fan of any of the shows we just mentioned—or watch ­t elevision at all—to appreciate that there’s a basic human fascination with the complex and contradictory characters around us. From “people watching” out in public to first impressions about a new professor on the first day of class to late-night conversations with friends about why so-and-so just acted the way he did, much of our daily mental energy is devoted to analyzing other people. Why? Because thinking about other individuals and their behavior helps us understand and predict our social universe (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967). This Social Perception effort to make sense of the social world around us is the focus of this chapter. The study of how we form Specifically, we will discuss social perception—the study of how we form impressions of and make impressions of other people and how we make inferences about them. We’ll start inferences about other people with one particularly important source of information used in thinking about others: nonverbal communication, such as people’s facial expressions, body movements, and tone of voice. Nonverbal Communication 4.1 How do people use nonverbal cues to understand others? In the course of daily interaction, so much of what we have to say to other people doesn’t require us to actually say anything at all. Our nonverbal expressions provide others with a wealth of information about us; we use these same nonverbal cues to learn about them (Gifford, 1991; Hall, Gunnery, & Andrzejewski, 2011; Hall, Murphy, & Schmid Nonverbal Communication Mast, 2007). Nonverbal communication refers to how people communicate, inten- The way in which people tionally or unintentionally, without words. Facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, communicate, intentionally body positions and movement, the use of touch, and eye gaze are the most frequently or unintentionally, without used and most revealing channels of nonverbal communication (Knapp, Hall, & words; nonverbal cues include Horgan, 2014). facial expressions, tone of voice, Nonverbal cues serve a variety of functions in communication. They help us to gestures, body position and express our emotions, our attitudes, and our personality (and to perceive those same movement, the use of touch, characteristics in others). For example, you express “I’m angry” by narrowing your and gaze eyes, lowering your eyebrows, and setting your mouth in a thin, straight line. You communicate your personality traits, such as being an extravert, with broad gestures and frequent changes in voice pitch and inflection (Knapp et al., 2014). Just think When the eyes say one thing, and about how difficult it can sometimes be to convey the true meaning and tone of your the tongue another, a practiced man message when communicating on email or via text. There’s a reason why emoticons relies on the language of the first. and now emojis are so popular; they help fill in gaps created by the lack of nonverbal —Ralph Waldo Emerson, cues in such communications. You can explore how you use one aspect of nonverbal The Conduct of Life communication—your voice—in the Try It! on the next page. 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 107 TRY IT! Using Your Voice as a Nonverbal Cue A student new to English was listening to an English radio You’re angry. station and was very confused when the radio jockeys Jen and You’re being sarcastic. Stephanie laughed in joy after Jen told Stephanie “I totally hate You’re scared. you.” What type of cue did the student miss out on? Imagine You’re surprised. yourself to be in Jen’s position and repeat what she said. Make You’re disgusted. guesses about the words that might have been emphasized by You’re very happy. Jen and the tone she might have used. Sierra’s mother asked her how her siblings were doing after Now try this exercise with a friend. Turn your back to your friend Sierra had been on the phone with her sisters. Sierra responded, as you repeat the sentence; you want your friend to have to “Abigail and Janice said they are doing fine, and both made many rely on your voice as the only cue, without help from any facial positive comments about their current life. However, I doubt Janice expressions. How well does he or she guess the emotions you is doing as fine as she says.” Why do you think she has interpreted are expressing? Have your friend try the exercise too. Can you the same message given by both of her siblings differently? understand his or her nonverbal vocal cues? If you don’t always Try saying saying out loud “I don’t know her” so that it correctly identify the emotions in each other’s voices, discuss communicates each of the emotions listed below. Experiment with what was missing or confusing in the voice. In this way, you’ll be the pitch of your voice (high or low), the speed with which you speak, able to figure out, for example, what a “disgusted” voice sounds the loudness or softness of your voice, and which words you stress. like as compared to an “angry” or “scared” voice. Social psychologists are not the only ones to recognize the importance of nonverbal communication. Today it seems like every political debate or high-profile press confer- ence is inevitably followed by a panel of pundits who analyze what was said but also how it was said. Indeed, on today’s cable news channels, the title “body language expert” appears to be just as common as “political correspondent.” Some of these anal- yses are more informed than others. The best ones draw on an extensive scientific liter- ature concerning nonverbal communication. Interestingly, though, nonverbal forms of communication have typically been studied individually, in their separate “chan- nels.” In other words, some studies examine eye gaze, others investigate gestures, and still others explore the role of body posture in social perception. But in everyday life, nonverbal cues of many kinds occur all at the same time in a quite dazzling orches- tration of simultaneous information (Archer & Akert, 1980; Knapp et al., 2014). Let’s focus on the research concerning a few of these channels now before turning to how we interpret the full symphony of nonverbal information as it occurs naturally. Facial Expressions of Emotion The crown jewel of nonverbal communication is the facial-expressions channel. This aspect of communication has a long history of research, beginning with Charles Darwin’s book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Its primacy is due to the exquisite communicativeness of the human face (Becker, Kenrick, Neuberg, Encode Blackwell, & Smith, 2007; Fernández-Dols & Crivelli, 2013; Kappas, 1997; Wehrle, To express or emit nonverbal Kaiser, Schmidt, & Scherer, 2000). Look at the photographs on page 108. We bet you behavior, such as smiling or can figure out which emotions these expressions convey with very little effort. patting someone on the back EVOLUTION AND FACIAL EXPRESSIONS Darwin’s research on facial expres- Decode sions has had a major impact on the field in many areas. We will focus on his belief To interpret the meaning of the that the primary emotions conveyed by the face are universal: the argument that all nonverbal behavior other people humans encode, or express, these emotions in the same way and that all humans can express, such as deciding that a decode, or interpret them, with comparable accuracy. Darwin’s interest in evolution pat on the back was an expression led him to believe that nonverbal forms of communication were species specific and of condescension and not not culture specific. He proposed that facial expressions were vestiges of once-useful kindness 14:42:23. 108 Chapter 4 physiological reactions. For example, if early hominids ate something that tasted terrible, they would have wrinkled their noses in displeasure and expelled the food from their mouths. Research by Joshua Susskind and his colleagues (2008) offers support for Darwin’s view. They studied the facial expressions of disgust and fear and found, first, that the muscle movements of each emotion were completely the opposite of the other. Second, they found that the “fear face” enhances perception, while the “disgust face” decreases it. For fear, the facial and eye muscle movements increase sensory input, such as widening the visual field, increasing the volume of air in the nose, and speeding up eye movements—all useful responses to something that is frightening. In contrast, for disgust, the muscle movements decrease input from these senses: Eyes narrow and less air is breathed in, which are useful reactions to something that smells or tastes disgusting (Susskind et al., 2008). Was Darwin right that facial expressions of emotion are universal? The answer seems to be yes, for the most part, for six major emotional expressions: anger, happi- ness, surprise, fear, disgust, and sadness. For example, in a particularly well-designed study, Paul Ekman and Walter Friesen (1971) traveled to New Guinea, where they studied the decoding ability of the South Fore, a preliterate tribe that, until that time, had had no contact with Western civilization. They told the Fore people brief stories with emotional content and then showed them photographs of American men and women expressing the six emotions; the Fores’ job was to match the facial expres- sions of emotion to the stories. The Fores were as accurate as Western subjects. The researchers then asked the Fore people to demonstrate, while being photographed, facial expressions that would match the stories they were told. These photographs, when later shown to American research participants, were also decoded accurately. This research yielded considerable evidence that the ability to interpret the six major emotions is cross-cultural—part of being human and not a product of people’s partic- ular cultural experiences (Biehl et al., 1997; Ekman, 1993; Ekman et al., 1987; Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002; Haidt & Keltner, 1999; Izard, 1994; Matsumoto & Wilingham, 2006). These photographs depict facial expressions of the six major emotions. Can you guess the emotion expressed on each face? Top r 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 109 Why do we say that evidence has supported universal emotional expression, but only “for the most part”? Well, for decades, textbooks such as this one have offered an unqualified “yes” to the question of universality. But recent research paints a more complicated picture. Studies have found that individuals from Western cultures maintain more rigid boundaries between the six major emotions when applying them to faces, whereas Asian respondents show overlap in their use of these categories (Jack, Garrod, Yu, Caldara, & Schyns, 2012). Other research has supported universality when asking participants from across cultures to match emotional labels to faces but found evidence of cross-cultural differences when allowing people to freely sort faces into their own grouping system (Gendron, Roberson, van der Vyver, & Barrett, 2014). Clearly, cultural ­variation in encoding and decoding remains an open research question among contemporary social psychologists. Beyond these six emotions, are there other emotional states that are communicated with distinctive and readily identifiable facial expres- sions? Researchers are exploring just this question for emotions such as contempt, anxiety, shame, determination, envy, and embarrassment (Ekman, O’Sullivan, & Matsumoto, 1991; Harmon-Jones, Schmeichel, Mennitt, & Harmon-Jones, 2011; Harrigan & O’Connell, 1996; Keltner & Shiota, 2003; van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011). For example, research has indicated that the emotion of pride exists cross-cultur- ally. Pride is a particularly interesting emotional display because it involves a facial expression as well as body posture and gesture cues. The nonverbal expression of pride, involving facial expression, posture, Specifically, the prototypical pride expression includes a small smile, and gesture, is encoded and decoded the head tilted back slightly, a visibly expanded chest, and arms raised cross-culturally. above the head or hands on hips (Tracy & Robins, 2004). Photographs of pride expressions were accurately decoded by research participants in the United States and Italy, as well as individuals from a preliterate, isolated tribe in Burkina Faso, West Africa (Tracy & Robins, 2008). Jessica Tracy and David Matsumoto (2008) explored pride and its opposite, shame, by coding the spontaneous expressions of judo athletes at the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Sighted and blind athletes from 37 countries were coded on their nonverbal behavior just after they had won or lost a match. The pride expression was associated with winning for both sighted and blind athletes around the world. Shame, expressed by slumped shoulders and a sunken chest, was significantly associated with losing for all the athletes except one group—sighted athletes from highly individualistic cultures, such as President Barack Obama and 2012 U.S. those of the United States and Western Europe. In individualistic cultures, shame is Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney a negative, stigmatized emotion that one tends to hide rather than display (Robins & show off their matching “McKayla is Schriber, 2009). not impressed” faces. Recent research suggests that beyond the six major WHY IS DECODING SOMETIMES DIFFICULT? Decoding facial expressions accu- emotion expressions, other expressions may also be universally recognized. rately is more complicated than we have indicated, however, for multiple reasons. First, people frequently display affect blends (Du, Tao, & Martinez, 2014; Ekman Affect Blends & Friesen, 1975): One part of their face registers one emotion while another part Facial expressions in which one registers a different emotion. Take a look at the accompanying photographs and see part of the face registers one if you can tell which two emotions are being expressed in each face. An affect blend emotion while another part of the 14:42:23. ion 110 Chapter 4 both horrible and inappropriate—you’d be disgusted with the content and angry that the person told you. A second complication is that aspects of the same facial expression can have different implications based on context and other cues (Barrett, Mesquita, & Gendron, 2011; Hassin, Aviezer, & Bentin, 2013; Parkinson, 2013). For example, studies indicate that decoding of facial displays varies depending on eye gaze (Adams et al., 2010; Ulloa, Puce, Hugueville, & George, 2014). For an approach-­o riented emotion like anger, decoding is quickest when a face stares right at you, presumably alerting you that you are the target of the anger and might need to prepare for confrontation. But for avoidance- oriented emotions like fear, decoding is easiest when a face displays an averted gaze—the eyes looking over to the side reveal to you the exact location of the scary object, signaling to you that you should also be fearful of whatever is off in that direction (Adams & Kleck, 2003). And yet a third reason why decoding facial expressions can be challenging has to do with culture. Culture and the Channels of Nonverbal Communication For decades, Paul Ekman and his colleagues have studied the influence of culture on the facial display of emotions (Ekman & Davidson, 1994; Ekman & Friesen, 1971; Matsumoto & Ekman, 1989; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2010). They have concluded that display rules are particular to each culture and dictate what kinds of emotional expressions people are supposed to show. As we saw in our discussion of athletes’ spontaneous expressions at the Olympics and Paralympics (Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008), the display rules of more individualistic cultures discourage the expression of shame in front of others, while the display rules of more collectivistic cultures allow (or even encourage) it. Here is another example: American cultural norms typically discourage emotional displays in men, such as grief or crying, but allow the facial display of such emotions in women. In comparison, in Japan, traditional cultural rules dictate that women should not exhibit a wide, uninhibited smile (Ramsey, 1981). Japanese women will often hide a wide smile behind their hands, whereas Western women Often, people express more than one are allowed—indeed, ­e ncouraged—to smile broadly and often (Henley, 1977; La emotion at the same time. Can you France, Hecht, & Paluck, 2003). Japanese norms lead people to cover up negative tell which emotions these people are facial expressions with smiles and laughter and, in general, to display fewer facial expressing? The answers are printed expressions than are displayed in the West (Argyle, 1986; Aune & Aune, 1996; below. (The Paul Ekman Group, LLC) Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, 1996; Richmond & McCroskey, 1995). There are, of course, other channels of nonverbal communication besides facial emotional expression clearly.) photograph with your hand to see each expressions. These nonverbal cues are strongly shaped by culture. Eye contact and (mouth). (It may help to cover half of the gaze are particularly powerful nonverbal cues, as alluded to above. In American culture, people often become suspicious when a person doesn’t “look them in the eye” (eyes and eyebrows) and happiness woman is expressing a blend of surprise disgust (the nose and mouth region). The while speaking, and they find it disconcerting to speak to someone who is wearing dark sunglasses. However, as you can see in Figure 4.1, in other parts of the world, of anger (the eye and eyebrow region) and Answers: The man is expressing a blend direct eye gaze is considered invasive or disrespectful. Another form of nonverbal communication is how people use personal space. Imagine that you are talking to a person who stands too close to you or too far away; these deviations from “normal” spacing will affect your impressions of that person. Cultures vary greatly in what is considered normative use of personal space (Hall, Display Rules 1969; Hogh-Olesen, 2008). For example, most Americans like to have a bubble of open Culturally determined rules about space, a few feet in radius, surrounding them. In comparison, in some other cultures which nonverbal behaviors are it is normal for strangers to stand right next to each other, to the point of touching; appropriate to display someone who stands apart may be considered odd or suspicious. 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 111 Figure 4.1 Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication Many forms of nonverbal behavior are specific to a given culture. Not only do some of the nonverbal behaviors of one culture mean nothing in another, but the same nonverbal behavior can exist in two cultures but have very different meanings in each. Such nonverbal differences can lead to misunderstanding when people from different societies interact. Some of these cultural differences are noted here. Eye contact and gaze contact cultures include North American, northern European, Asian, Pakistani, and Native American peoples. Cultures also differ in how appropriate they consider same-sex touching among friends. For example, in Korea and Egypt, men and women hold hands, link arms, or walk hip to hip with their same-sex friends, and these nonverbal behaviors carry no sexual connotation. In the United States, such behavior is much less common, particularly between male friends. The “hand-purse”gesture: This gesture is Hand and head gestures formed by straightening the fingers and In American culture, direct eye contact is val- thumb of one hand and bringing them ued; a person who won’t “look you in the eye” together so the tips touch, pointing is perceived as being evasive or even lying. upward. This gesture has no clear meaning However, in many parts of the world, direct in American culture. However, in Italy, it eye contact is considered disrespectful, espe- means “What are you trying to say?”; in cially with superiors. For example, in Nigeria, Spain, it means “good”; in Tunisia, it means Puerto Rico, and Thailand, children are taught “slow down”; and in Malta, it means “you not to make direct eye contact with their may seem good, but you are really bad.” teachers and other adults. Cherokee, Navajo, and Hopi Native Americans use minimal eye contact as well. Japanese use far less direct eye contact than Americans do. In contrast, Arabs use a great deal of eye contact, with a gaze that would be considered piercing by people from some other cultures. The “OK” sign: The OK sign is formed by making a circle with your thumb and index finger, with your three other fingers Personal space and touching extended upward. In the United States, this means “okay.” However, in Japan, this hand gesture means “money.” In France, it means “zero”; in Mexico, it means “sex.” In Ethiopia, it means “homosexuality.” Finally, in some South American coun- tries, such as Brazil, it is an obscene gesture, Nodding the head: In the United States, carrying the same meaning as the nodding one’s head up and down means American “flipping the bird” sign, where “yes” and shaking it from side to side means the middle finger is the only one ex- “no.” However, in some parts of Africa and tended. India, the opposite is true: nodding up and down means “no,” and shaking from side to side means “yes.” To complicate this situa- The thumbs-up gesture: In the United tion even more, in Korea, shaking one’s head Societies vary in whether they are States, raising one thumb upward with from side to side means “I don’t know” high-contact cultures, where people stand the rest of the fingers in the fist means (which in the United States is communi- close to each other and touch frequently, “OK.” Several European countries have a cated by a shrug of the shoulders). Finally, or low-contact cultures, where people similar meaning for this gesture; for ex- Bulgarians indicate disagreement by throw- maintain more interpersonal space and ample, in France it means “excellent!” ing their heads back and then returning touch less often. High-contact cultures However, in Japan, the same gesture them to an upright position—which is fre- include Middle Eastern, South American, means “boyfriend,” while in Iran and quently mistaken by Americans as meaning and southern European countries. Low- Sardinia, it is obscene. agreement. 14:42:23. 112 Chapter 4 Gestures of the hands and arms are also a fascinating means of communication. Americans are very adept at understanding certain gestures, such as the OK sign, in which one forms a circle with the thumb and forefinger and curves the rest of the fingers above the circle, or “flipping the bird,” in which one bends all the fingers down at the first knuckle except the longest, middle finger. Gestures such as these, which Emblems have clear, well-understood definitions, are called emblems (Archer, 1997a; Ekman Nonverbal gestures that have well- & Friesen, 1975). The important thing to keep in mind about emblems is that they are understood definitions within a not universal; each culture has devised its own emblems, and these are not necessarily given culture; they usually have understandable to people from other cultures (see Figure 4.1). Thus, “flipping the direct verbal translations, such as bird” will be a clear communicative sign in American society, whereas in some parts the OK sign of Europe you’d need to make a quick gesture with a cupped hand under your chin to convey the same message. On one occasion when President George H. W. Bush used the “V for victory” sign (forming a V shape with his fingers), he did it b ­ ackward—with the palm of his hand facing him instead of the audience. Unfortunately, he flashed this gesture to a large crowd in Australia, and in Australia this emblem is the equivalent of “flipping the bird” (Archer, 1997a)! To summarize, people’s nonverbal communication can tell us a lot about their attitudes, emotions, and intentions. In some instances, as with the expression of major emotions, the conclusions people draw from these bits of social data are fairly consis- tent across cultures. In other instances, as with eye contact, personal distance, and gestures, the same nonverbal information is interpreted very differently by people in different parts of the world. But regardless of where you’re from, it’s clear that much of what you pick up on in the course of social interaction is conveyed nonverbally. In short, much of what is said in daily conversations takes place before anyone actually says anything at all. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Joshua Susskind et al. (2008) studied the facial expressions of c. photographs of pride expressions were accurately disgust and fear. What major conclusion did they arrive at? decoded by participants from the United States. a. The muscle movements of disgust and fear emotions d. pride expressions were not associated with winning were exactly the same. around the world. b. The “fear face” decreases perception, while “disgust face” 4. A large number of researches have indicated that decoding enhances perception. facial expressions accurately is complicated because c. For fear, less air is breathed in and eye movements are a. one part of people’s face registers one emotion while slower, in contrast, for disgust, eyes widen and more air another part registers a different emotion. is breathed in. b. aspects of the same facial expression have similar d. The muscle movements of disgust and fear emotions implications irrespective of the context and other cues. were completely the opposite of the other. c. display rules are not particular to each culture and do not 2. The research by Paul Ekman and Walter Friesen dictate what kinds of emotional expressions people are (1971) indicated that the ability to interpret six major supposed to show. emotions is d. eye gaze has nothing to do with decoding of facial a. a product of people’s particular cultural experiences. expressions in case of approach-oriented emotions like b. a result of an individual’s predispositions. anger and avoidance-oriented emotions like fear. c. cross-cultural. 5. Which of the following is true about emblems? d. highly individualistic. a. Each culture has devised its own emblems. 3. In the case of pride, research has indicated that b. Emblems are understandable to people across cultures. a. photographs of pride expressions could not be accurately c. Emblems do not tell us about the sender’s intentions. decoded by participants from the United States. d. Emblems are a clear form of verbal communication. b. the prototypical pride expressions included slumped shoulders and a sunken chest. See page 620 for the answers. 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 113 First Impressions: Quick but Long-Lasting 4.2 How quickly do first impressions form, and why do they persist? What do we know about people when we first meet them? We know what we can see and hear. And even though we also know we should not “judge a book by its cover,” we do form impressions of others based on the slightest of cues. For example, Sam Gosling has conducted research on “what your stuff says about you,” as presented in his book Snoop (2008). Is your room messy or orderly? What posters are on your wall? What objects are on your desk and shelves? All of these possessions can be used by observers (potential snoopers) as clues to what you are really like. For example, consider what we might learn from an individual whose office or car doesn’t have much decoration in the form of personal objects or photos. One possibility, Gosling suggests, is that this is the mark of a person who wants to establish a clear separation between his or her private self and his or her work/public self. Another is that this is someone low on the personality trait of extraversion: extraverts tend to decorate public spaces more, making them inviting to other people and sparking conversations with passersby. When you think about your own room, what cues do you think it provides to others about your personality? What can you learn about your friends This is Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds, from their rooms and their “stuff”? American musical performer and Of course, as you now know, another factor that plays a major role in first impres- producer. Research suggests that sions is nonverbal communication. What we have not reviewed yet is just how quickly the same characteristics that earned him his nickname might also lead such communication takes place. Research indicates that we form initial impressions of perceivers to jump to the conclusion others based solely on their facial appearance in less than 100 milliseconds (Bar, Neta, that he is friendly, honest, and gullible. & Linz, 2006; Willis & Todorov, 2006). That’s less than 1/10 of one second! And recent research indicates that we show signs of this tendency to consistently infer character from faces when we’re as young as 3 years old (Cogsdill, Todorov, Spelke, & Banaji, 2014). One example of these quick snap judgments is that people who have “baby faces”—features that are reminiscent of those of small children, with big eyes, a small chin and nose, and a high forehead—tend to be perceived as having childlike traits as well, such as being naive, warm, and submissive (Livingston & Pearce, 2009; Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2008). Obviously, these impressions are not always correct, but there is some evidence that we can make accurate judgments about others simply based on facial appearance. As another example, after brief glances at photographs of men’s and women’s faces, research participants are able to judge sexual orientation at above-chance levels of accuracy, suggesting that there may indeed be a scientific basis to the notion of “gaydar” (Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2008; Rule, Ambady, & Hallett, 2009). Or in another set of studies, American participants rated the faces of Canadian political candidates (with whom they were totally unfamiliar) on the dimensions of powerfulness and warmth. Their first-impression ratings correlated with actual election results: The more powerful the candidates looked, the more likely they were to have won their election; the warmer they looked, the less likely they were to have won (Rule & Ambady, 2010; Todorov, Said, Engell, & Oosterhof, 2008). Just think about this for a moment—all the time, money, and effort candidates expend to try to win elections, and in the end, the simple question of how powerful their face looks emerges as a significant predictor of success. Perhaps we were too dismissive earlier of the importance of “body language experts”! Indeed, it is amazing just how limited an exposure to other people is enough for us to form meaningful first impressions about their abilities or personalities. Thin-Slicing Nalini Ambady and her colleagues have referred to such social perception based on Drawing meaningful conclusions extremely brief snippets of behavior as thin-slicing (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; about another person’s personality Rule, Krendl, Ivcevic, & Ambady, 2013; Slepian, Bogart, & Ambady, 2014). In one or skills based on an extremely study, they examined an instance of social perception familiar to most readers of brief sample of behavior 14:42:23. 114 Chapter 4 this book (not to mention its authors): how college students form impres- sions of their professors (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993). For the study, the researchers videotaped more than a dozen instructors while teaching and then selected three random 10-second clips from each one. After removing the audio track, they showed the silent video clips to students who had never before taken a class with these instructors. Students were asked to rate the teachers on a series of variables including how competent, confi- dent, and active they appeared to be. Not surprisingly, participants had little trouble coming up with ratings—as we’ve discussed, first impres- sions come to us quickly. But recall that Ambady’s prediction was that thin-sliced impressions would be meaningful, not just fast. To test this, she compared the ratings made by her participants—whose only expo- sure to the instructors came in the form of brief, silent video clips—with the end-of-semester teaching evaluations these instructors received from their actual students. The result was a strong correlation: the thin-sliced impressions were incredibly similar to the perceptions of students who spent an entire semester with the instructors. In fact, even when shorter, 6-second silent clips were used, participants were still able to accurately predict who the highest-rated teachers were (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992). Similar findings have been observed outside the classroom. Patients draw informative first impressions based on thin-slice exposures to doctors; clinicians do the same with their patients (Ambady, LaPlante, Nguen, Rosenthal, & Levinson, 2002; Slepian et al., 2014). Our ability to extract meaningful information from very limited encounters has also captured Much like TV’s Dr. Cal Lightman, many of us the attention of authors and television producers. The research of Ambady find it professionally (and personally) useful to be able to accurately detect when other and colleagues plays a central role in Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling Blink people are being dishonest. (2005). And some of you are likely familiar with the work of the fictional Dr. Cal Lightman, deception detection expert and lead character of the tele- vision show Lie to Me. If Lightman’s mantra, “the truth is written all over our faces,” seems to you like it was ripped right out of a social psychology textbook, there’s good reason: His character was based on Paul Ekman, the psychologist responsible for the faces you see on page 108 as well as a scientific consultant to the show. That said, to date there has been little in the way of published scientific data to support the idea that people can effectively use ­microexpressions—involuntary facial ­movements—to reliably determine deception as accurately as Lightman does on television. It is clear, then, just how quickly first impressions happen. But do they last? If first impressions faded from view as quickly as they came into focus, then first impressions might not matter much when it comes to social perception. But it turns out they do matter. Let’s look at just how important and long-lasting first impressions really are. The Lingering Influence of Initial Impressions As we saw in Chapter 3, when people are unsure about the nature of the social world, they use their schemas to fill in the gaps. A schema is a mental shortcut: When all we I think the first reading of a poem have is a small amount of information, our schemas provide additional information is a true one, and after that we ­delude ourselves into the belief that to fill in the gaps (Fiske & Taylor, 2013; Markus & Zajonc, 1985). Thus, when we are the ­sensation, the impression, is trying to understand other people, we can use just a few observations of a person repeated. as a starting point and then, using our schemas, create a much fuller understanding. —Jorge Luis Borges, This idea suggests that our initial impressions have staying power—that they color This Craft of Verse the way we interpret the information we learn next. As an example, consider a hypothetical individual you’ve never met before. Let’s call him Keith. We want you to mull over your impressions of Keith as we tell you the following about him: Keith is an interesting guy. People who know him say he’s intelligent. Another word often used to describe him is industrious. Keith can also be 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 115 impulsive as well as critical. Still others have described him as stubborn and envious. Based on this information, what’s your impression of Keith at this point? Now consider another hypothetical stranger. We’ll call him Kevin. Kevin is an interesting fellow as well. People who know him have called him envious. Also stub- born. And you know what, it just so happens that other descriptors that people use when talking about Kevin are critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent. By now, you’ve likely sensed the pattern. Keith and Kevin are being described the same way. Or, at least, the content of what you’ve been told about them is the same; the order of the descriptors has been switched around. What conclusions do you think people would draw about Keith versus Kevin? When Solomon Asch (1946) ran this very study, describing hypothetical individuals with the same descriptors you read above, he found that order made a big difference. Participants formed a more positive impression of someone described as intelligent-industrious-impulsive-­ critical-stubborn-envious (Keith, in our example), compared to someone described as envious-stubborn-critical-impulsive-industrious-intelligent (Kevin, in our case). Why? Because first impressions are powerful. In this instance, Keith’s positive traits of being intelligent and industrious create a filter—a schema—through which subse- quent traits are viewed. After learning that he is smart and hardworking, perhaps you also perceived “impulsive” and “critical” in a positive light—as in, sure, Keith may make quick decisions and critique the work of others, but that can be productive for someone who’s intelligent. Kevin, on the other hand? You already know he’s envious and stubborn. This makes it easy to see those same traits of critical and impulsive as negatives, bringing them in line with the initial expectations you have for him. Asch’s study demonstrates that there’s a primacy effect in social perception: What Primacy Effect we learn first about another person colors how we see the information we learn next. When it comes to forming In addition to primacy effects, we also have schemas regarding which traits tend to impressions, the first traits we appear together in clusters. That is, we use a few known characteristics to determine perceive in others influence how what other characteristics a person likely has (Sedikides & Anderson, 1994; Werth & we view information that we learn Foerster, 2002; Willis & Todorov, 2006). For example, a capable, can-do person is also about them later seen as powerful and dominant, whereas an incompetent person is seen as the oppo- site (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2006; Todorov et al., 2008; Wojciszke, 2005). Or consider physical attractiveness. We often presume that “what is beautiful is good”—that people with physical beauty will also have a whole host of other wonderful qualities (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Jackson, Hunter, & Hodge, 1995). But primacy effects and schemas about which characteristics go together aren’t the only reasons why first impressions have lasting effects. When it comes to social perception, we also have a tendency for belief perseverance, or standing by initial Belief Perseverance conclusions even when subsequently learned information suggests we shouldn’t. In The tendency to stick with an dozens of studies over several decades, research participants have opted to stick by initial judgment even in the face their original impressions even once the basis for their that judgment is contradicted of new information that should or revealed as erroneous (Anderson, 1995; Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975). Indeed, prompt us to reconsider belief perseverance has been cited to explain why jurors have a hard time disre- garding evidence ruled inadmissible or why scientists are slow to discount published research conclusions that turn out to be based on fabricated data (Greitemeyer, 2013; Lilienfeld & Byron, 2013). As Chapter 6 will detail, we find inconsistent thoughts unpleasant and uncomfortable. Once we make up our minds, we’re inclined to keep them made up. And so first impressions, once formed, can prove pretty hard to shake. Using First Impressions and Nonverbal Communication to Our Advantage There are clear implications of the research on first impressions: When trying to win people over, there’s no overemphasizing how important it is to start off on the right foot. 14:42:23. 116 Chapter 4 Getting ready for public speaking? Make sure the opening moments of your presentation are your most polished, as that thin-slice will set an influential tone. Going on a job interview? How you dress, whether you maintain eye contact, your body posture—these are immediately apparent factors that may shape how others evaluate the rest of your visit. Even the simplest of introductory actions, like the way you shake hands, can have a dramatic effect: Research indicates that perceptions of handshake quality are signifi- cantly related to assessments of personality and even final hiring recom- mendations in an interview setting (Chaplin, Phillips, Brown, & Clanton, 2000; Stewart, Dustin, Barrick, & Darnold, 2008). Interestingly, you can also capitalize on the importance of nonverbal communication by using your own body language to change how you yourself think, feel, and act. This is the provocative idea demonstrated by research that Dana Carney, Amy Cuddy, and Andy Yap (2010) conducted on what they refer to as “power posing.” In one study, participants were asked to assume different nonverbal body postures for a total of 2 minutes. In one condition, these were high-power poses, such as standing behind a table, leaning forward with hands planted firmly on its surface; in the other condition, these were low-power poses, such as standing with feet crossed and arms wrapped around one’s own torso. Immediately after holding the high-power poses, participants reported feeling more powerful. They adopted a riskier strategy on a gambling task. Saliva analysis indicated that they even experienced a surge in testosterone compared to the low-power posers, who also felt less powerful and became more risk averse (Carney et al., 2010). These findings identify yet another potential strategy for your next job interview: spend a few minutes before you get there striking super- To watch the Machiavellian (and at times, bloodied) hero poses in the bathroom mirror. You may just psych yourself into a more politician Francis Underwood in an episode of emboldened, impressive performance. Or, as the study authors put it, “fake House of Cards is to witness Kevin Spacey putting his it ’til you make it.” That something so simple as body posture could have character through a series of high-status postures and poses. Research on power posing demonstrates such profound effects is an idea that has clearly struck a nerve with the that simply adopting a body posture typically general public: Cuddy’s 2012 TED talk describing this research already has associated with high-status can make us feel or act been viewed by 25 million people and counting. more powerful as well. REVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Research indicates that which of the following received from their actual students at the end of the candidates would be most likely to win a political election? semester. a. Denise, whose face other people often perceive as c. ratings were similar for silent video clips and for the indicating a warm personality same video clips when shown with audio. b. Theo, who many people believe is gay based only on his d. while the thin-sliced video clips were brief, it took facial appearance participants a relatively long amount of time to come c. Vanessa, who has large eyes, a high forehead, and a up with ratings of the instructors they viewed. small, child-like nose 3. Asch’s (1946) research on person perception provided d. Rudy, whose face is usually seen by others as indicating evidence for which of the following conclusions? a cold, calculating, and powerful personality a. There is a primacy effect in social perception. 2. Ambady and colleagues were able to conclude that the b. First impressions serve as a filter through thin-sliced impressions formed by their participants were which subsequently learned information is interpreted. based on meaningful information because c. Even when the content of information conveyed a. their ratings based on 30-second clips were little different about two individuals remains the same, the order than their ratings based on 6-second clips. in which we learn it can have a powerful effect on our b. their ratings of the silent video clips corresponded impression. strongly with the ratings that the instructors d. All of the above. 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 117 4. Belief perseverance can help explain which of the 5. Which of the following statements regarding the following? Carney et al. (2010) power-posing research is true? a. Why people who watch news programs that refer to a. Standing in a closed posture with one’s arms wrapped climate change as a hoax remain convinced of that around one’s own torso tends to be a high-power pose. conclusion even in the face of scientific evidence to the b. While participants who previously had posed in a contrary. high-power posture exhibited evidence of increased b. Why during jury deliberations it is easier to convince testosterone, their self-report responses indicated that fellow jurors to change their votes from guilty to not they did not feel more powerful after the manipulation. guilty than it is to change their minds in the opposite c. Participants who posed in a high-power posture adopted direction. riskier strategies on a subsequent gambling task. c. Why weather forecasters are better at predicting rainfall d. Participants were less willing to adopt low-power poses totals than snowfall totals. compared to high-power poses. d. All of the above. See page 620 for the answers. Causal Attribution: Answering the “Why” Question 4.3 How do people determine why others do what they do? We have seen that when we observe other people, we have a rich source of In the beginning was not the word, i­ nformation—their nonverbal behavior—on which to base our impressions. However, not the deed, not the silly serpent. In nonverbal behavior and other components of first impression formation are not fail- the beginning was why? Why did she safe indicators of what a person is really thinking or feeling. If you meet an acquain- pluck the apple? Was she bored? tance and she says, “It’s great to see you!” does she really mean it? Perhaps she is Was she inquisitive? Was she paid? Did Adam put her up to it? If not, who acting more thrilled than she really feels, out of politeness. Perhaps she is outright did? lying and really can’t stand you. The point is that even though nonverbal communi- —John Le Carré, cation is sometimes easy to decode and first impressions are quick to form, there is The Russia House, 1989 still substantial ambiguity as to what a person’s behavior really means (Ames & Johar, 2009; DePaulo, 1992; DePaulo, Stone, & Lassiter, 1985). Why did that acquaintance behave as she did? To answer this “why” question, we will use our immediate observations to form more elegant and complex inferences about what people are really like and what motivates them to act as they do. How we go about answering these questions is the focus of attribution theory, the study of Attribution Theory how we infer the causes of other people’s behavior. A description of the way in which people explain the causes of their The Nature of the Attribution Process own and other people’s behavior Fritz Heider (1958) is frequently referred to as the father of attribution theory. His influential book defined the field of social perception, and his legacy is still very much evident in current research (Crandall, Silvia, N’Gbala, Tsang, & Dawson, 2007; Kwan & Chiu, 2014). Heider discussed what he called “naive,” or “common- sense,” psychology. In his view, people were like amateur scientists, trying to understand other people’s behavior by piecing together information until they arrived at a reasonable explanation or cause (Surian, Caldi, & Sperber, 2007; Weiner, 2008). One of Heider’s most valuable contributions is a simple dichotomy: When trying Internal Attribution to decide why people behave as they do—for example, why a father has just yelled The inference that a person is at his young daughter—we can make one of two attributions. One option is to make behaving in a certain way because an internal attribution, deciding that the cause of the father’s behavior was some- of something about the person, thing about him—his disposition, personality, attitudes, or character—an explanation such as attitude, character, or that assigns the causes of his behavior internally. For example, we might decide that personality 14:42:23. 118 Chapter 4 the father has poor parenting skills and disciplines his child in inappropriate ways. External Attribution Alternatively, we might make an external attribution, deciding that something in The inference that a person is the situation, not in the father’s personality or attitudes, caused his behavior. If we behaving a certain way because of conclude that he yelled because his daughter had just stepped into the street without something about the situation he looking, we would be making an external attribution for his behavior. or she is in; the assumption is that Notice that our impression of the father will be very different depending on most people would respond the the type of attribution we make. For this particular example, if we make an internal same way in that situation attribution, we’ll form a negative impression. If we make an external attribution, we won’t learn much about the father—after all, most parents would have done the same thing if their child had just disobeyed them by stepping into the street. Quite a difference! This internal/external attribution dichotomy plays an extraordinarily important role in even the most intimate parts of our lives. Indeed, spouses in happy, satisfied marriages make very different attributions about their partners than spouses in trou- bled, distressed marriages. Satisfied spouses tend to make internal attributions for their partners’ positive behaviors (e.g., “She helped me because she’s such a generous person”) and external attributions for their partners’ negative behaviors (e.g., “He said something mean because he’s so stressed at work right now”). In contrast, spouses in distressed marriages tend to display the opposite pattern: Their partners’ positive behaviors are chalked up to external causes (e.g., “She helped me because she wanted to impress our friends”), while negative behaviors are attributed to internal causes (e.g., “He said something mean because he’s a self-centered jerk”). When an intimate relationship becomes troubled, this second pattern of attributions about one’s partner only makes the situation worse and can have dire consequences for the future of the relationship (Bradbury & Fincham, 1991; Fincham, Bradbury, Arias, Byrne, & Karney, 1997; McNulty, O’Mara, & Karney, 2008). TRY IT! Listen as People Make Attributions Forming attributions is a major part of daily life, and you can In particular, are they making internal attributions (about a watch the attribution process in action! All you need to do is person’s character or personality), or are they making situational find a group of friends and an interesting topic to discuss. attributions (about all the other variables that make up a person’s Perhaps one of them starts telling you about something that life)? Do your friends seem to prefer one type of attribution to the happened to her that day, or perhaps the group is discussing other? If their interpretation is internal, what happens when you another person whom everybody knows. As they talk, pay suggest another possible interpretation, one that is external? very close attention to what they say. They will be trying to Do they agree or disagree with you? What kinds of information figure out why the person being discussed did what she did do they offer as “proof” that their ­attribution is right? Observing or said what he said. In other words, they will be making attri- people when they are making attributions in real conversations butions. Your job is to try to keep track of their comments and will show you just how common and powerful this type of thinking label the attributional strategies they are using. is when people are trying to understand each other. The Covariation Model: Internal versus External Attributions The first, essential step in the process of social perception is determining how people decide whether to make an internal or an external attribution. Harold Kelley’s major contribution to attribution theory was the idea that we notice and think about more than one piece of information when forming such judgments (Kelley, 1967, 1973). For example, let’s say you ask your friend to lend you her car, and she says no. Naturally, you wonder 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 119 why. What explains her behavior? Kelley’s theory, called the covariation model, says that you will examine multiple behaviors from different times and situations to answer this question. Has your friend refused to lend you her car in the past? Does she lend it to other people? Does she normally lend you things when you ask her? Kelley, like Heider before him, assumed that when we are in the process of forming an attribution, we gather informa- tion, or data. The data we use, according to Kelley, are about how a person’s behavior “covaries,” or changes, across time and place and depending on the target of the behavior. By discovering covariation in people’s behavior (e.g., your friend refuses to lend you her car, but she agrees to lend it to others), you can reach a conclusion about what causes their behavior. According to Fritz Heider, we tend to When we are forming an attribution, what kinds of covariation information do see the causes of a person’s behavior as we examine? Kelley (1967) identified three key types: consensus, distinctiveness, and internal. For example, when we see a consistency. Suppose that you are working at your part-time job at the mall and you driver exhibiting signs of “road rage,” observe your boss yelling at another employee, Hannah. Automatically, you ask that we are likely to assume that he is at fault for losing his temper. If we knew attributional question: “Why is the boss yelling at Hannah and being so critical? Is it the person’s situation–perhaps he is something about the boss, something about Hannah, or something about the situation rushing to the hospital to check on a that surrounds and affects him?” family member and another driver has How would Kelley’s (1967, 1973) model of covariation assessment answer just cut him off–we might come up this question? Consensus information refers to how other people behave toward with a different, external attribution. the same stimulus—in this case, Hannah. Do other people at work also yell at or criticize Hannah? If so, perhaps something about Hannah’s job performance is Covariation Model responsible for the interaction you witnessed; if not, you become more confident A theory that states that to that your boss is to blame. Distinctiveness information refers to how the actor form an attribution about what (the person whose behavior we are trying to explain) responds to other stimuli. Is caused a person’s behavior, we Hannah the only employee whom your boss criticizes publicly? If so, we wonder systematically note the pattern what it is about her that seems to set him off; if not, we again start to think that between the presence or absence he’s responsible for the confrontation. Consistency information refers to the of possible causal factors and whether the behavior occurs frequency with which the observed behavior between the same actor and the same stimulus occurs across time and circumstances. Does the boss criticize Hannah Consensus Information regularly and frequently, whether the store is filled with customers or empty? Information about the extent According to Kelley’s theory, when these three sources of information combine to which other people behave into one of two distinct patterns, a clear attribution can be made. People are most the same way toward the same likely to make an internal attribution (deciding that the behavior was due to some- stimulus as the actor does thing about the boss) when the consensus and distinctiveness of the act are low but its consistency is high (see Figure 4.2). We would be pretty confident that the boss Distinctiveness Information yelled at Hannah because he is an impatient or vindictive person if we knew that no Information about the extent to one else yells at Hannah, that the boss yells at other employees, and that the boss yells which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different at Hannah every chance he gets. People are likely to make an external attribution (in stimuli this case, about Hannah) if consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency are all high. Finally, when consistency is low, we cannot make a clear internal or external attri- Consistency Information bution, so we resort to a special kind of external or situational attribution, one that Information about the extent to assumes that something unusual or peculiar must have happened in this particular which the behavior between one circumstance—for example, the boss just received very upsetting news that day and actor and one stimulus is the same uncharacteristically lost his temper with the first person he saw. across time and circumstances 14:42:23. 120 Chapter 4 Figure 4.2 The Covariation Model Why did the boss yell at his employee Hannah? To decide whether a behavior was caused by internal (dispositional) factors or by external (situational) factors, people use consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information. Why did the boss yell at his employee Hannah? People are likely to low in consen- low in distinc- high in consis- make an internal sus: The boss is tiveness: The boss tency: The boss attribution—it the only person yells at all the yells at Hannah was something about working in the employees almost every the boss—if they see store who yells time he sees her this behavior as at Hannah People are likely to high in consen- high in distinc- high in consis- make an external sus: All of the tiveness: The boss tency: The boss attribution—it employees yell at doesn’t yell at yells at Hannah was something about Hannah too any of the other almost every Hannah—if they see employees time he sees her this behavior as People are likely to low or high in low or high in low in consis- think it was some- consensus distinctiveness tency: This is the thing peculiar about first time that the particular circum- the boss has stances in which the yelled at boss yelled at Hannah Hannah if they see this behavior as The covariation model assumes that people make causal attributions in a rational, logical way. People observe the clues about consensus, distinctiveness, and consis- tency and then draw a logical inference about why the person did what he or she did. Research has confirmed that people often do make attributions in this way (Forsterling, 1989; Gilbert, 1998a; Hewstone & Jaspars, 1987; Hilton, Smith, & Kim, 1995; Orvis, Cunningham, & Kelley, 1975; White, 2002)—with two exceptions. Studies have shown that people don’t use consensus information as much as Kelley’s theory predicted; they rely more on consistency and distinctiveness when forming attributions (McArthur, 1972; Wright, Lüüs, & Christie, 1990). Also, people don’t always have the relevant information they need on all three of Kelley’s dimensions. For example, you may not have consistency information because this is the first time you have ever asked your friend to borrow her car. In these situations, research has shown that people proceed with the attribution process using the information they do have and, if necessary, making guesses about the missing data (Fiedler, Walther, & Nickel, 1999; Kelley, 1973). To summarize, the covariation model portrays people as master detectives, deducing the causes of behavior as systematically and logically as Sherlock Holmes would. However, people aren’t always logical or rational when forming judgments about others. Sometimes they distort information to satisfy their need for high self-­ esteem (see Chapter 6). At other times they use mental shortcuts that, although often helpful, can lead to inaccurate judgments (see Chapter 3). Unfortunately, the attribu- tions we make are sometimes just plain wrong. In the next section, we will discuss some specific errors or biases that plague the attribution process. One shortcut is very common: the idea that people do what they do because of the kind of people they are, not because of the situation they are in. 14:42:23.  Social Perception: How We Come to Understand Other People 121 The Fundamental Attribution Error: People as Personality Psychologists One day in December 1955, a Black seamstress in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to give up her seat on the city bus to a White man. At the time, segregationist “Jim Crow” laws in the South relegated African Americans to second-class status in all aspects of everyday life. They could sit in the middle section if it was empty, but they had to give up their seats to White people when the bus got full; the front 10 rows were always reserved for White people only (Feeney, 2005). That day in 1955, Rosa Parks broke the law and refused to give up her seat. Later, she said, “People always say I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that wasn’t true. I was not tired physically.... No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in” (Feeney, 2005, pp. A1, B8). Ms. Parks was convicted of violating the segregation laws and fined. In response, African Americans boycotted the Montgomery buses for over a year and mounted a legal challenge that led to a successful Supreme Court decision in 1956 outlawing segregation on buses. Rosa Parks’s brave act was the precipitating event of the American civil rights move- ment (Shipp, 2005). On October 24, 2005, Rosa Parks died at the age of 92. To commemorate her, the American Public Transportation Association called for December 1 to be the “Tribute to Rosa Parks Day.” Buses in major cities across the country designated that one seat, behind the driver, be kept empty for the day in her honor. To alert riders, signs were posted on the windows adjacent to the seat, with Rosa Parks’s photograph and the small caption “It all started on a bus” (Ramirez, 2005). A New York City journalist rode the buses that day to see if people would honor the request—after all, an empty seat on a crowded city bus is a coveted item. He found that the vast majority of riders did so, even during rush hour, when just finding a place to stand is difficult. However, some people did sit in the special seat (Ramirez, 2005). Now this was an interesting development, both to the journalist and to his fellow trav- elers. Why did they do it? It seemed to be a flagrant act of disrespect. How could one not honor Rosa Parks? Were these “sitters” prejudiced, even racist? Were they selfish or arrogant, believing that their personal needs were more important than anything else? In short, negative dispositional attributions were being made about these sitters. Being a good reporter, the journalist began asking the sitters why they chose to sit in this special seat. Lo and behold, a situational explanation emerged. They hadn’t seen the sign. In fact, the small signs were badly placed and easy to miss in the midst of scheduling announcements (Ramirez, 2005). After the sign was pointed out to sitters, they reacted swiftly. One man “read it quickly, shuddered, then uttered a loud profanity in dismay. He scooted out of the seat. ‘I didn’t realize it was there.... It’s history.... It means freedom’” (Ramirez, 2005, p. B1). Another rider, a Black man, began to sit down but stopped halfway when he saw the sign. He said to another rider, a Black woman, “‘But people were sitting here.’ The woman said gently, ‘They couldn’t see the sign.’ ‘Well,’ the man said, peeling away the sign and moving it to the edge of the seat, ‘they will now’” (Ramirez, 2005, p. B1). Thus, many on the bus were making the wrong attribution about the sitters. The other riders believed that their behavior was due to the kind of people they were (bad ones) instead of due to the situation—in this Rosa Parks, sitting at the front of the bus, after the Supreme Court ruled case, a too small, poorly located sign. that bus segregation is illegal. 14:42:23. 122 Chapter 4 The fundamental theory or schema most of us have about human behavior is that people do what they do because of the kind of people they are, not because of the situation they are in. When thinking this way, we are more like personality psychologists, who see behavior as stemming from internal dispositions and traits, than like social psychologists, who focus on the impact of social situations on behavior. As we saw in Chapter 1, this tendency to overestimate the extent to which other people’s behavior is due to internal, dispositional factors, and to underestimate the role of situational factors is called the fundamental attribution error (Heider, 1958; Jones, 1990; Ross, 1977; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). The fundamental attribution error has also been called the c­ orrespondence bias (Gilbert, 1998b; Gilbert & Jones, 1986; Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Buses across the United States posted a Jones, 1979, 1990). sign like this one, asking riders to keep There have been many empirical demonstrations of the tendency to see one seat empty to honor Rosa Parks. people’s behavior as a reflection of their dispositions and beliefs rather than as influenced by the situation (Arsena, Silvera, & Pandelaere, 2014; Gawronski, 2003a; Fundamental Attribution Error Miller, Ashton, & Mishal, 1990; Miller, Jones, & Hinkle, 1981). For example, in a The tendency to overestimate classic study, Edward Jones and Victor Harris (1967) asked college students to the extent to which other read an essay written by a fellow student that either supported or opposed Fidel people’s behavior is due to Castro’s rule in Cuba and then to guess how the author of the essay really felt about internal, dispositional factors Castro (see Figure 4.3). In one condition, the researchers told the students that the and to underestimate the role of author freely chose which position to take in the essay, thereby making it easy to situational factors guess how he really felt. If he chose to write in favor of Castro, clearly he must be sympathetic to Castro. In another condition, however, the students learned that the author had been assigned the position as a participant in a debate. One should not Figure 4.3 The Fundamental Attribution Error Even when people knew that the author’s choice of an essay topic was externally caused (i.e., in the no-choice condition), they assumed that what he wrote reflected how he really felt about Castro. That is, they made an internal attribution from his behavior. (Based on Jones & Harris, 1967) Pro-Castro 60 50 essay writer’s attitu