Impression formation Flashcards
Models of forming 1st impressions: configuration model (Asch, 1946)
- idea of central trait- which disproportionally influence impression (e.g. warm)
- peripheral trait= does not imply many other characteristics (e.g. skilful)
Models of forming 1st impressions: configuration model (Asch, 1946)> study>
- used scale for peripheral trait (e.g. generous> ungenerous)
- asked about central trait (i.e. warm/cold) to see implications on scale
- results: higher for generous when ‘warm’ applied
What can bias an impression? (6)
- primacy & recency effects
- postitivity & negativity bias
- personal constructs & implicit personality theories
- physical appearance
- stereotypes
- social judgements
primacy & recency effects (Asch, 1946)=
> observation that info presented at beginning (primacy) & end (regency) of learning, tend to be retained better
positivity & negativity bias
- we assume the best of people (Sears, 1983)
- but more greatly remember the negative info (fiske, 1980)
impression bias: Personal construct & implict personality theories (kelly, 1955)
- everyone has unique philosophies about what they think people are
- this shapes the way you engage with the world & interactions
impression bias: physical appearance:
- evidence of primacy effecr (as one of first things you notice about a person) (park, 1986)
- relationship between “Inner and outer” beauty (believe those who look good also are nice/kind
impression bias: social judgements
- social rules dictate when we are allowed to make judgements (e.g. employment)
- external judgement not always reflective of internal
cognitive algebra model> (3) + explanations
suggestion humans= computers & enact positive & negative evaluations of attributions, via either:
>summation= + up traits (e.g. intelligence (+3) + sincereness (+3))
>averaging= + up traits & divide by number of traits
>weighted average:
- impression gets worse the more get to know
- weigh certain traits as having more value than other (e.g. trustworthy>humorous in a politician)
social schemas & categories: top down>
previous knowledge drives behaviour, we do not seek new info out
schema= (2)
cognitive structure that represents knowledge about a concept or stimulus, including attributes and the relations amoung those attributes
(e.g. ‘waiter’: knowledge of appearance, role, disposition etc all part of schema)
social schemas & categories: family resemblance»
defining property of category membership
(e.g. “dog” includes labrador & daschund, despite difference in appearance as all share FAMILY RESEMBLANCE)
social schemas & categories: prototypes=
prototypes= cognitive presentations of typical/ ideal defining features of category (e.g. bear & grizzly)
schema types: (5)
- person: (e.g. parents or best friend)
- role: (e.g. pilots, doctors (aka social stereotypes)
- scripts= events
- content-free= general set of rules for info processing
- self= who we are
How fast can we “thin slice” a face? (3)
- 50%-80% accurate judgement of EMOTION between 30ms-50ms (called “zero acquaintance” faces (unknown to you)
- accurate judgements of threat in 39ms
- no accurate judgements of intelligence
what do faces tell us? 3 main dimension> (3)
- intentions= judgements of trustworthiness, honesty or morality
- ability= judgements of competence, confidence, or dominance
- attractiveness
How are “zero acquaintance” faces made?
- collection of different individuals> take photos of face, colelct blood samples, run several tests (such as IQ)
- faces are mapped out and averaged together
What can we see in the face?>
- eyes
- skin
- sexual orientation
What can we see in the face? eyes (2)
- brown eyes seen as more dominant & trustworthy
- behavioural evidence= blue eyed boys are shyer than brown eyed peers
(product of face shape?)
What can we see in the face? skin» (3)
- smooth skin= seen as trustworthy, competent, attractive, healthy
- blemishes= judged as less healthy
>negative evaluations of presence of blemishes was stronger & more consistent
What can we see in the face?>sexual orientation: > (3)
can be “accurately” perceived in 40-50ms
- more likely to guess heterosexual (heteronormative bias)
- instant reaction has better accuracy than deliberation
- F more accurate at judging m orientation than m are at f
why can sexual orientation be perceived in face?> (3)
- guide mating behaviour
>approach-avoid decision
>see competition
AI & judging homo & hetero men (Wang & Kosinki, 2017)
- AI: correctly distinguish between homo & hetero men in 81% & 71% of women
- for humans: only 61% for men & 54% for women
- based on facial morphology, expression & grooming styles
issues with AI & sexual orientation study
ethically could have harmful repercussions: certain cultures and beliefs with discrimminatory practices against homosexuality
Impressions from handshakes»
- firmness stable & consistent across time & coders
>negative to shyness & neuroticism
> positive to extraversion & emotional expressiveness
coder reports=
related to impressions of particpants formed by coders
impressions & job interviws: difference between m & w>
- w who are more open make a more favourable impression
- m who are more open make a poorer impression
impression from voice> how say “hello” study
- 64 people recorded
- “hello”- 390ms
- participants rated one attribute
- results: showed high degree of consistent perceptions across participants:
>valence (e.g. warmth & trust)
>dominance
> attractiveness (different for m & f)
impressions according to different contexts > email vs conversation study
- 10 min conversation with stranger, via either email exchnage or face-to-face
- rated each other on big five
- results:
>accuracy dependent on trait context
-visible traits judged better in person- context shapes relevance
extended self>
the things we own become part of us & reflect us
e.g.> -wearing watch, shoes, tattoos, glasses, romantic partners
watches & extended self> Ellis & Jenkins (2015)
- study 1 & 2= on personality measures
>high on conscientiousness
>low on extraversion & openness
-study 3= time of arrival to study
>punctual
glasses & extened self (4)
- seen to be conscientious
-seen as less extraverted & less open to experience
>visual acuity may co-occur with personality
>personality may influence the willingness to wear glasses
Shoes (bahns, ge, crandall) (2012)
- behavioural residues> personalities perform acts (e.g. conscientious & clean shoes)
- 3 qns: how much agreement? how accurate? what signals?
- measures: big 5, demographics, attachment, politics etc
- results:
Q1= high agreement
Q2= mixed accuracy: best for demographics, not for personality, good for attachment
Q3= mixed- traits pair with traits
