lecture 1- impression formation Flashcards
(51 cards)
1
Q
definition of impression formation
A
highly complex- ‘We look at a person and immediately a certain impression of his character forms itself in us. A glance, a few spoken words are sufficient to tell us a story
about a highly complex matter.”
easy- We know that such impressions form with remarkable rapidity and with great
ease.
vital for social functioning- “This remarkable capacity we possess to understand
something of the character of another person, to form a conception of him as a human being, as a center of life and striving, with particular characteristics forming a
distinct individuality, is a precondition of social life.”
2
Q
expressions are extremely rapid:
A
- Impressions of trustworthiness, competence, likeability,
aggressiveness, attractiveness can be made in 100ms Willis & Todorov, 2006
Psych Science - Trustworthiness in 33ms Todorov et al 2009 Social Cognition
3
Q
halo effect - impressions matter
A
- Halo effect: “what is beautiful is good” – Dion
JPSP, 1972 - Beautiful people expected to lead better
lives (more successful, better marriages etc) - Beautiful people assumed to have more
socially desirable personality traits - Meta-analysis Eagly et al 1991 Psych. Bulletin
- strongest effects for social competence traits
- medium for intellectual competence
- no effects for integrity and concern for others
4
Q
impressions matter: beauty premium
A
- Beauty premium: relative to unattractive peers, attractive people:
- paid around 5 to 10 percent more Hameresh & Biddle 1993, Beauty and the Labor Market
- receive lighter sentences in the criminal justice system Stewart, J. Applied Psychology 1980
- more attractive children are expected to attain higher grades by teachers
5
Q
beyond beauty: financial lending
A
- trustworthy looking people given
better credit ratings than untrustworthy looking people on real credit websites Duarte et al 2012 Review of Financial Studies - more likely to have loans funded
- trustworthy effect size equivalent to
owning a house as collateral! - (over and above social stereotypes
from gender, age etc)
6
Q
beyond beauty: criminal justice
A
- convicted criminals who look untrustworthy in police mugshots
more likely to face the death penalty than trustworthy-looking criminals Rule & Wilson, 2017 Psych Science, - exonerated (innocent) people who look untrustworthy also more likely to face the death penalty than trustworthy-looking people
7
Q
beyond beauty: voting
A
- more competent looking politicians
(judged from political profile pictures)
more likely to be elected Todorov et al 2005,
Science - result replicated when 5-year olds made
the judgements - “who would you choose to captain the
ship?” Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009, Science
8
Q
are impressions lasting?
A
- Participants given good, bad or neutral information about three individuals, then played trust game with them Delgado, Frank,
& Phelps, 2005, Nature Neuroscience - Participants didn’t rely fully on partners’ actual behaviour in the game to predict partners’ intentions
- Instead, participants used their initial impressions
9
Q
are impressions lasting cont
A
- Participants given good, bad or neutral information about three individuals, then played trust game with them Delgado, Frank,
& Phelps, 2005, Nature Neuroscience - fMRI scanning showed activity in the caudate nucleus (associated with reward learning) ONLY in neutral condition (where no prior impression)
- Suggests prior impressions disrupted
learning from the game
10
Q
stereotype content model (SCM)
A
- Warmth and competence as universal
dimensions of social cognition Fiske et al
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2006 - Warmth: trustworthiness,
friendliness, kindness - Competence: capability, ability
- “Big Two”
11
Q
Stereotype content model (SCM)
A
- Warmth: what is their intention, good
or bad? - Competence: do they have the ability
to carry out their intention? - Evolutionary perspective: social
perception reflects ancestral selection
pressures
12
Q
cont
A
- Freely sampled common
social groups (23) Fiske et al 2002,
JPSP - New participants rated these
social groups on: - warmth
- competence
- status
- competition (with someone
“like me”)
13
Q
Support for SCM/Big Two model
A
- Content analysis on 1,124 recollected social episodes Wojciszke et al
1994 JPSP - 73% of social episodes included morality (warmth) and agency
(competence) impression content - warmth (42%)
- competence (26%)
- both (5%, suggests dissociable)
14
Q
Support for SCM/Big Two model
A
- Students asked to sort 64 traits into groups of traits that were likely
to cluster in the same person Rosenberg et al 1968 JPSP - Multidimensional scaling of these similarity
judgements found two or three dimensions - Social
- Intellectual
15
Q
Support for SCM/Big Two model
A
- Students asked to sort 64 traits into groups of traits that were likely
to cluster in the same person Rosenberg et al 1968 JPSP - Multidimensional scaling of these similarity
judgements found two or three dimensions - Social (warmth)
- Intellectual (competence)
- (Activity)
16
Q
Criticism of SCM model: Halo effects
A
- Halo effect: positive impressions cluster together (e.g.
attractiveness halo) - SCM model: dissociable dimensions
…. contradiction? - Warmth and competence impressions of individuals
are positively related: r = .42 Rosenberg et al 1968 JPSP - Halo effects exist across dimensions too
17
Q
Criticism of SCM/Big Two: Construct validity
A
- Criticism of model: morality v sociability Leach et al 2007 JPSP
- Morality: trustworthiness, honesty, sincerity
- Sociability: friendliness, likeability, helpful
18
Q
Criticism of SCM/Big Two : Construct validity
A
- People report morality as more important than sociability or
competence for in-group members Leach et al 2007 JPSP - People also judge morality as more important than sociability
or competence for strangers Brambilla et al 2011 European J. Social Psych - Morality related traits more likely to be mentioned than social
warmth traits in real obituaries Goodwin et al 2014 JPSP
19
Q
Criticism of SCM/Big Two: Construct validity
A
- Status acquired by prestige OR dominance Cheng et al 2013 JPSP
- Prestige: status acquired through competence or expertise
- Dominance: status acquired through physical intimidation or
force
20
Q
Criticism of SCM/Big Two: Construct validity
A
- Zero-acquaintance paradigm: 36 same-sex groups of strangers
interacted without previously meeting before Cheng et al 2013 JPSP - Peer judgements of prestige and dominance correlated with peer as
well as researcher judgements of influence - Prestige and dominance had similar levels of influence but effects
were statistically dissociable
21
Q
primacy of warmth
A
- Which is more important: warmth or competence?
- Warmth (due to importance for survival) argued to be:
1) More central
2) More salient (attention grabbing)
3) More important for overall valence (how positive or negative the
impression is)
22
Q
Primacy of warmth: Centrality
A
- Asch 1946 gave people lists of traits (sequentially) and asked to make
an overall impression of that person at the end of the list
Person 1: intelligent – skillful – industrious – warm - determined –
practical - cautious
1) People’s final descriptions were holistic, rounded
2) Extreme reversals in positivity of overall impression if “warm” versus
“cold”, even with other desirable traits present (e.g. “intelligent”)
23
Q
Primacy of warmth: Centrality
A
- Asch 1946 gave people lists of traits (sequentially) and asked to make
an overall impression of that person at the end of the list
Person 1: intelligent – skillful – industrious – warm - determined –
practical - cautious
Person 2: intelligent – skillful – industrious – cold - determined –
practical - cautious
24
Q
Primacy of warmth: Centrality
A
- Asch’ findings often argued to represent the primacy of
warmth Fiske et al 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences - i.e. warmth traits are “central traits” that especially affect
impressions - He compared warm/cold (strong effect) with polite/blunt (less
strong effect)
25
evidence against centrality
* Replication study: asked participants to rank traits in list for how
important they were in forming their overall impression Nauts et al 2014
Social Psychology
* No evidence that warmth was ranked as more important (19.5% of
people thought it was most important versus 55.3% for intelligent)
* Warmth/cold manipulation had less effect when presented with other
traits (e.g. obedient, weak, shallow, vain) Nauts et al 2014
* Did replicate finding that overall impressions changed more
dramatically in valence (positivity) for warmth/cold rather than
polite/blunt
26
evidence against centrality
* Warm/cold trait word embedded in list of competence words
* Importance of warmth is context specific: warmth is only central in
the context of mainly competence-related traits
* Asch (1946) himself argued impressions are a Gestalt (holistic)
* Gestalt view suggests that the dimensional approach is oversimplified
27
Primacy of warmth: Salience
* Warmth dimension is more readily available in spontaneous lists
of traits Wojciszke et al 1994, JPSP
* Asked people to list 10 most important personality traits Wojciszke et al
1998, Personality Soci. Psych. Bullletin
* Sincere, honest, cheerful, tolerant, loyal, intelligent, truthful,
unselfish, reliable, kind
28
Primacy of warmth: Valence
* Warmth dimension also more extreme in valence
(positive/negative) Rosenberg et al 1968, JPSP
* Overall impressions (how positive or negative the person was),
were predicted by more morality traits than competence traits
(even when morality and competence traits equally favourable)
Wojciszke et al 1998, Personality Soci. Psych. Bullletin
* Morality more important in impression formation as more directly
affect another’s well-being (hurt or help)
* Competence more important in self-perception, as more directly
affects own well-being
29
Primacy of warmth: Speed
* Warmth traits are recognised as words more quickly than
competence traits Abele & Bruckmuller, 2011, J. Experimental Social Psych.
* Lexical decision task (word/not word)
* Impressions of faces shown for 100ms were highly similar to
impressions made to faces shown for an unlimited time
Willis & Todorov, 2006, Psych Science
* Trustworthiness impressions more similar across presentation
time than competence impressions (i.e. so can be made with
less information)
30
Diagnosticity of impressions
* Which is more informative, warmth or
competence?
* It depends….
* Cue-diagnosticity model of impression
formation: high competence and low
warmth are especially diagnostic of
behaviour
31
Diagnosticity of impressions
* Cue-diagnosticity model of impression
formation: high competence is especially
diagnostic Skowronski & Carlston 1987, JPSP
* Competence assumed NOT to be under
personal control
* Thus, competent behaviour is seen as more
diagnostic than incompetent behaviour is
* i.e. a stupid person can’t fake being smart,
but a smart person can make mistakes
32
Diagnosticity of impressions
* Cue-diagnosticity model of impression
formation: low warmth is especially
diagnostic Skowronski & Carlston 1987, JPSP
* Conversely, warmth IS assumed to be under
personal control
* As warmth is highly positive, cold behaviour
is seen as more diagnostic than warm
behaviour is
* i.e. people have a strong motivation to fake
being nice, but not to fake being mean
33
dual process model
* Brewer 1988 A dual process model of
impression formation
* Impressions can be bottom-up
(driven by features of the person)
* Insight that impressions can also
be created from top-down prior
knowledge (stereotypes)
* Stereotypes: information based
on social groups
* Brewer 1988 A dual process model of
impression formation
* Most of the time, we don’t
form an impression at all
34
dual process model
* Brewer 1988 A dual process model of
impression formation
* Impressions rely more on
stereotypes OR on individual
features
* People have busy mental lives;
impressions more likely to be
driven by stereotypes when people
are busy
* Impressions more likely to be
driven by individuating features
when relevant (i.e. for self) or
when they don’t fit the stereotype
35
dual process model cont
* Brewer 1988 A dual process model of
impression formation
* Most of the time, we don’t form an
impression at all
* Impressions rely more on
stereotypes OR on individual
features
* People have busy mental lives;
impressions more likely to be driven
by stereotypes when people are
busy
* Impressions more likely to be driven
by individuating features when
relevant (i.e. for self) or when they
don’t fit the stereotype
36
cognitive mister
* Brewer’s model was inspired by:
* cognitive miser account ->
people do enough just to get by
Fiske & Taylor 1984 Social Cognition
* relying on stereotypes to form
an impression is easier than
using individuating features
* people tend to rely on
stereotypes to form impressions
when they are mentally busy
37
Cognitive miser v efficiency seeker
- motivated tactician account -> people are efficiency seekers
who do enough to make sense of the world, depending on their
goals and available mental resources Fiske & Taylor 1991 Social Cognition, revised
* Needing to cope with limited mental
resources influences the strategy taken
by people
* stereotypes are still more efficient to
use, but people use individuating
information where they can
* Why are stereotypes efficient? rich sets
of “pre-chunked” knowledge
38
Cognitive miser v efficiency seeker
Cognitive miser v efficiency seeker
* People asked to form impressions of “priest” or “skinhead”, given
both stereotype consistent and inconsistent behaviours Sherman et al
1998, JPSP Study 1
* What happens when people are under cognitive load (asked to
simultaneously remember a number)?
* If people are cognitive misers, should pay attention to
stereotype consistent information (easier) under load
* BUT if people are efficient, flexible encoders, should pay
attention to stereotype inconsistent info under load
(more meaningful)
39
meaning seeker model
* Meaning seeker account: people seek to understand others through
stereotypes Spears & Haslam 1997, The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life
* Stereotyping not more efficient than individuation
* Stereotypes dynamically constructed, not rigid or pre-specified
* Individuation not always superior to stereotyping, as stereotyping
can be very useful (e.g. doctor/patient
stereotypes help guide consultations)
40
meaning seeker model
* Seeking meaning is not at odds with cognitive efficiency accounts
Sherman, Macrae & Bodenhausen 2000 European Rev. Social. Psych
* Stereotypes show more influence on resulting impressions when
people are under cognitive load, in line with efficiency accounts
Sherman, Macrae & Bodenhausen 2000 European Rev. Social. Psych
* It is hard to test the claim that stereotypes are constructed
dynamically
* Stereotypes only useful if fit to context
(e.g. doctor/patient stereotypes v ethnicity
stereotypes)
41
Stereotyping and individuation
* Stereotyping and individuation not mutually exclusive Sherman,
Macrae & Bodenhausen 2000 European Rev. Social. Psych
* Rather, perceiver has to integrate these sources when forming
impressions
* More recent approaches treat impression formation as an
integrative, dynamic process of making predictions about
others Mende-Siedlecki, 2018, Current Opinion in Psychology
* Brain dynamically incorporates prior information and existing
evidence from many varied sources
42
Impressions from (facial) appearance
Three main sources of impression information: Ames, Fiske & Todorov,
2011, The Handbook of Social Neuroscience.
1) what other people say - psychology studies use
descriptions of behaviour or character
2) their behaviour – psychology studies use videos, or real
interactions (e.g. economic games)
3) their appearance – most work has been done on faces
43
models of facial impressions
* One approach is to use this
variation
* Participants generate
spontaneous impressions while
looking at a set of faces
* New participants then rate the
same faces on the most
frequently mentioned traits
* Principal components analysis to
distil impressions down into
underlying dimensions
* Two dimensions emerged
44
models of facial impressions
Trustworthiness
- Do they want to help or harm me?
Dominance
- can they help or harm me?
- threat detection- evolved through natural selection
youthful- attractiveness
45
Overlap between SCM and face
models
* Impressions of 1,000
faces on warmth,
trustworthiness,
dominance,
competence
* Are warmth and
trustworthiness
similar?
46
are impressions universal
* Models suggest that impressions reflect mechanisms
of natural and sexual selection Todorov et al Annual Review, 2015 Fiske et
al Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, Zebrowitz, Science, 2005
47
are impressions universal?
* Warmth and competence
dimensions do differentiate
groups across culture Cuddy et al
2009, British J. Social Psychology
- warmth and competence dimensions do differentiate groups across culture
48
Support for SCM/Big Two across culture
* Cross-cultural study: started with a pool of 304 German
words taken from previous studies on impression formation
(e.g. dominance, competence etc) Abele et al 2008 European J. Social Psychology
* Reduced to 69 (non-overlapping) traits based on students’ (N
= 613) and experts’ judgements
* Traits rated on agency (competence), communion (warmth)
and valence (how positive the trait is) by N = 548 students in
Germany, Belgium Italy, Poland & USA
49
Support for SCM/Big Two across culture cont
* High cross-cultural agreement in whether traits represented
agency (competence), communion (warmth) and how positive
the traits were (all r > .77) Abele et al 2008 European J. Social Psychology
* Traits clustered into 4 groups: high and low competence, and
high and low warmth, across culture
* Suggests that two dimensions can account (at least broadly)
for impressions across culture
50
face impressions across culture
* Cross-cultural agreement BUT
* Higher within-culture agreement for own-culture faces
* Focused on Western impressions
51
