Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Impression formation
|
1) there is always an automatic, spontaneous response. Sometimes, there may be
2) a careful, mindful adjustment |
|
|
Automatic
|
A first glance and we notice categories such as age, sex, or race
Ex: Brewer (1981) gave students a large pile of photos and told them to organize them. The students spontaneously sorted the photos by young men, old men, young women, old women. Regardless of whether it's true or false, our knowledge about categories influence how we perceive other people. |
|
|
Baby-Facedness
|
The shape of a person's face influences first impressions.
Ex: Berry & McArther (1986) compared people's impressions of adult targets with baby faces were perceived as more honest, more naive, more submissive. Ex: in trials with baby faces |
|
|
Zebrowitz (1991)
|
Had students make decisions about applicants for 2 jobs at a day care center. The resumes showed they were equally qualified.
1) Directed job went to the mature-faced applicant 2) The teacher job to the baby-faced applicant |
|
|
Baby-face. An exception
|
Researchers studied the faces of CEO's of large companies. On average, Black CEO's are more baby-face then White CEO's
|
|
|
Primacy Effect
|
=information that comes first has more influence on impression.
When we rely on automatic processing on information about people |
|
|
Controlled Processing
|
If we are willing & able, we move to stage two: controlled adjustment. Sometimes the situation may get us to be more careful.
Ex: Tetlock (1983) gave evidence from a criminal case and asked them to judge the guilt or innocence of the defendant. 1) half started looking at info that suggesting the defendant was innocent, then the evidence that suggested guilty 2) the other way around Students judgments were confidential=primacy effect |
|
|
Implicit Personality Theories
|
=casual assumptions about which traits are common and how various traits are related
These theories include beliefs about "what goes with what" Ex: Asch(1946) gave students a list of traits for a person, then they used checklists to show what other traits person was likely to have Manipulated "warm" vs. "cold" Cold: only 19% target would also be generous/humorous Warm: 90% said generous 75% said humorous |
|
|
Central traits
|
Asch also showed that some are more important than others. Warm-cold is what he called a "central" trait. Knowing a person is warm( or cold) suggest person has many traits. So, changing the information about central trait changes the perceives overall impression of a person.
Ex: polite vs. blunt |
|
|
Expectancies--self-fulfilling
|
Sometimes our impressions leads to a "self-fulfilling prophesy"
Ex: Snyder (1977) men making calls to women they have seen a photo of are more warm/talkative on the phone Anderson& Bem (1981) turned tables (women called the men) and found the same effect |
