3.4 Impression Formation

     With an understanding of the self and how perception works, we can look at the ways they are intimately connected first in impression formation and then in impression management—academic terms for what you do every day.
     Impression formation (sometimes referred to as person perception) refers to the processes you go through in forming an impression of another person. Here you would make use of a variety of perception processes, each of which has pitfalls and potential dangers.
     Certain characteristics are obvious and are open to ordinary inspection—sex, approximate age, height, and weight, not surprisingly, are all perceived with great accuracy. What is surprising is that we can judge with above-chance accuracy (we’re accurate approximately 64.5 percent of the time) such characteristics as religion, sexuality, and even political leanings (Tskhay & Rule, 2013).

3.4.1 Impression Formation Processes

How you perceive another person and ultimately come to some kind of evaluation or interpretation of him or her is influenced by a variety of processes. Here we consider some of the more significant: the self-fulfilling prophecy, personality theory, primacy–recency, consistency, and attribution. In addition to these five processes, recall from the previous chapter the discussion of stereotyping. This is another process many people use to help them form impressions of others.

3.4.1.1 Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

     A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that comes true because you act on it as if it were true. Put differently, a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when you act on your schema as if it were true and in doing so make it true. Self-fulfilling prophecies occur in such widely different situations as parent–child relationships, educational settings, and business (Madon, Guyll, & Spoth, 2004; Merton, 1957; Rosenthal, 2002; Tierney & Farmer, 2004). There are four basic steps in the self-fulfilling prophecy:

1. You make a prediction or formulate a belief about a person or a situation. For example, you predict that Pat is friendly in social situations.
2. You act toward that person or situation as if that prediction or belief were true. For example, you act as if Pat is a friendly person.
3. Because you act as if the belief were true, it becomes true. For example, because of the way you act toward Pat, Pat becomes comfortable and friendly.
4. You observe your effect on the person or the resulting situation, and what you see strengthens your beliefs. For example, you observe Pat’s friendliness, and this reinforces your belief that Pat is in fact friendly.

     The self-fulfilling prophecy also can be seen when you make predictions about yourself and fulfill them. For example, suppose you enter a group situation convinced that the other members will dislike you. Almost invariably you’ll be proved right; the other members will appear to you to dislike you. What you may be doing is acting in a way that encourages the group to respond to you negatively. In this way, you fulfill your prophecies about yourself.

3.4.1.2 Personality Theory

     Everyone has a theory of personality (usually subconscious or implicit) that determines which characteristics of an individual go with other characteristics. Consider, for example, the following brief statements. Note the word in parentheses that you think best completes each sentence.

Carlo is energetic, eager, and (intelligent, stupid).
Kim is bold, defiant, and (extroverted, introverted).
Joe is bright, lively, and (thin, heavy).

Eve is attractive, intelligent, and (likable, unlikable).
Susan is cheerful, positive, and (outgoing, shy).
Angel is handsome, tall, and (friendly, unfriendly).

     What makes some of these choices seem right and others wrong is your implicit personality theory, the system of rules that tells you which characteristics go with which other characteristics. Your theory may, for example, have told you that a person who is energetic and eager is also intelligent, not stupid—although there is no logical reason why a stupid person could not be energetic and eager.
     The widely documented halo effect is a good example of how this personality theory works. If you believe a person has some positive qualities, you’re likely to infer that she or he also possesses other positive qualities. There is also a reverse halo (or “horns”) effect: If you know a person possesses several negative qualities, you’re more likely to infer that the person also has other negative qualities. For example, you’re more likely to perceive physically attractive people as more generous, sensitive, trustworthy, and interesting than those who are less attractive. And the horns effect or reverse halo effect will lead you to perceive those who are unattractive as mean, dishonest, antisocial, and sneaky (Katz, 2003).
     In using personality theories, apply them carefully and critically so as to avoid perceiving qualities in an individual that your theory tells you should be present but aren’t or seeing qualities that are not there (Plaks, Grant, & Dweck, 2005).

3.4.1.3 Primacy–Recency

     Assume for a moment that you’re enrolled in a course in which half the classes are extremely dull and half extremely exciting. At the end of the semester, you evaluate the course and the instructor. Would your evaluation be more favorable if the dull classes occurred in the first half of the semester and the exciting classes in the second? Or would it be more favorable if the order were reversed? If what comes first exerts the most influence, you have a primacy effect. If what comes last (or most recently) exerts the most influence, you have a recency effect.
     In the classic study on the effects of primacy–recency in perception, college students perceived a person who was described as “intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious” more positively than a person described as “envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent” (Asch, 1946). Notice that the descriptions are identical; only the order was changed. Clearly, there’s a tendency to use early information to get a general idea about a person and to use later information to make this impression more specific. The initial information helps you form a schema for the person. Once that schema is formed, you’re likely to resist information that contradicts it.
     One interesting practical implication of primacy–recency is that the first impression you make is likely to be the most important—and is likely to be made very quickly (Sunnafrank & Ramirez, 2004; Willis & Todorov, 2006). The reason for this is that the schema that others form of you functions as a filter to admit or block additional information about you. If the initial impression or schema is positive, others are likely (1) to readily remember additional positive information because it confirms this original positive image or schema; (2) to easily forget or distort negative information because it contradicts this original positive schema; and (3) to interpret ambiguous information as positive. You win in all three ways—if the initial impression is positive.

3.4.1.4 Consistency

     The tendency to maintain balance among perceptions or attitudes is called consistency. You expect certain things to go together and other things not to go together. On a purely intuitive basis, for example, respond to the following sentences by noting your expected response.

1. I expect a person I like to (like, dislike) me.
2. I expect a person I dislike to (like, dislike) me.
3. I expect my friend to (like, dislike) my friend.
4. I expect my friend to (like, dislike) my enemy.
5. I expect my enemy to (like, dislike) my friend.
6. I expect my enemy to (like, dislike) my enemy.

     According to most consistency theories, your expectations would be as follows: You would expect a person you liked to like you (1) and a person you disliked to dislike you (2). You would expect a friend to like a friend (3) and to dislike an enemy (4). You would expect your enemy to dislike your friend (5) and to like your other enemy (6). All these expectations are intuitively satisfying.
     Further, you would expect someone you liked to possess characteristics you like or admire and would expect your enemies not to possess characteristics you like or admire. Conversely, you would expect people you liked to lack unpleasant characteristics and those you disliked to possess unpleasant characteristics. The downside here is that you might be wrong; your friend may possess negative qualities (which your friendship may lead you to miss) and your enemy may possess positive qualities (which your enmity may lead you to miss).

3.4.1.5 Attribution of Control

     Another way in which you form impressions is through the attribution of control, a process by which you focus on explaining why someone behaved as he or she did on the basis of whether the person had control over his or her behavior. For example, suppose you invite your friend Desmond to dinner for 7 p.m. and he arrives at 9 p.m. Consider how you would respond to each of these reasons:

• Reason 1: I just couldn’t tear myself away from the beach. I really wanted to get a great tan.
• Reason 2: I was driving here when I saw some guys mugging an old couple. I broke it up and took the couple home. They were so frightened that I had to stay with them until their children arrived. The storm knocked out all the cell towers and electricity, so I had no way of calling to tell you I’d be late.
• Reason 3: I got in a car accident and was taken to the hospital.

     Depending on the reason, you would probably attribute very different motives to Desmond’s behavior. With reasons 1 and 2, you’d conclude that Desmond was in control of his behavior; with reason 3, that he was not. Further, you would probably respond negatively to reason 1 (Desmond was selfish and inconsiderate) and positively to reason 2 (Desmond was a Good Samaritan). Because Desmond was not in control of his behavior in reason 3, you would probably not attribute either positive or negative motivation to his behavior. Instead, you would probably feel sorry that he got into an accident.
     In perceiving and especially in evaluating other people’s behavior, you frequently ask if they were in control of the behavior. Generally, research shows that if you feel a person was in control of negative behaviors, you’ll come to dislike him or her. If you believe the person was not in control of negative behaviors, you’ll come to feel sorry for and not blame the person.
     In your attribution of controllability—or in attributing motives on the basis of any other reasons (for example, hearsay or observations of the person’s behavior) beware of several potential errors: (1) the self-serving bias, (2) overattribution, and (3) the fundamental attribution error.

■ Self-serving bias. You commit the self-serving bias when you take credit for the positive and deny responsibility for the negative. For example, you’re more likely to attribute your positive outcomes (say, you get an A on an exam) to internal and controllable factors—to your personality, intelligence, or hard work. And you’re more likely to attribute your negative outcomes (say, you get a D) to external and uncontrollable factors—to the exam’s being exceptionally difficult or to your roommate’s party the night before (Bernstein, Stephan, & Davis, 1979; Duval & Silva, 2002).
■ Overattribution. As noted in Chapter 2, overattribution—the tendency to single out one or two obvious characteristics of a person and attribute everything that person does to this one or these two characteristics—distorts perception. To prevent overattribution, recognize that most behaviors and personality characteristics result from lots of factors. You almost always make a mistake when you select one factor and attribute everything to it.
■ Fundamental attribution error. The error occurs when you overvalue the contribution of internal factors (for example, a person’s personality) and undervalue the influence of external factors (for example, the context or situation the person is in). The fundamental attribution error leads you to conclude that people do what they do because that’s the kind of people they are, not because of the situation they’re in. When Pat is late for an appointment, you’re more likely to conclude that Pat is inconsiderate or irresponsible than to attribute the lateness to a possible bus breakdown or traffic accident.

3.4.2 Increasing Accuracy in Impression Formation

     Successful communication depends largely on the accuracy of the impressions you form of others. We’ve already identified the potential barriers that can arise with each of the perceptual processes, for example, the self-serving bias or overattribution. In addition to avoiding these barriers, here are additional ways to increase your accuracy in impression formation.

3.4.2.1 Analyze Impressions

     Subject your perceptions to logical analysis, to critical thinking. Here are two suggestions.

• Recognize your own role in perception. Your emotional and physiological state will influence the meaning you give to your perceptions. A movie may seem hysterically funny when you’re in a good mood, but just plain stupid when you’re in a bad mood.
• Avoid early conclusions. Formulate hypotheses to test against additional information and evidence (rather than conclusions). Look for a variety of cues pointing in the same direction. The more cues that point to the same conclusion, the more likely your conclusion will be correct. Be especially alert to contradictory cues that seem to refute your initial hypotheses. At the same time, seek validation from others. Do others see things in the same way you do? If not, ask yourself if your perceptions may be distorted in some way.

3.4.2.2 Check Perceptions

     Perception checking will help you lessen your chances of misinterpreting another’s feelings and will also give the other person an opportunity to elaborate on his or her thoughts and feelings. In its most basic form, perception checking consists of two steps.

■ Describe what you see or hear. Try to do this as descriptively (not evaluatively) as you can. Sometimes you may wish to offer several possibilities, for example, “You’ve called me from work a lot this week. You seem concerned that everything is all right at home” or “You’ve not wanted to talk with me all week. You say that my work is fine, but you don’t seem to want to give me the same responsibilities that other editorial assistants have.”
■ Seek confirmation. Ask the other person if your description is accurate. Avoid mind reading. Don’t try to read the thoughts and feelings of another person just  from observing their behaviors. Avoid phrasing your questions defensively, as in “You really don’t want to go out, do you? I knew you didn’t when you turned on the television.” Instead, ask supportively, for example, “Would you rather watch TV?” or “Are you worried about the kids?” or “Are you displeased with my work? Is there anything I can do to improve my job performance?”

3.4.2.3 Reduce Uncertainty

     In every communication situation, there is some degree of ambiguity. A variety of uncertainty reduction strategies you can use to help you reduce your own uncertainty about another person (Berger & Bradac, 1982; Brashers, 2007; Gudykunst, 1993).

■ Observe. Observing another person while he or she is engaged in an active task, preferably interacting with others in an informal social situation, will often reveal a great deal about the person, as people are less apt to monitor their behaviors and more likely to reveal their true selves in informal situations.
■ Construct situations. You can sometimes manipulate situations so as to observe the person in more specific and revealing contexts. Employment interviews, theatrical auditions, and student teaching are good examples of situations arranged to give you an accurate view of the person in action.
■ Lurk. When you log on to an Internet group and lurk, reading the exchanges between the other group members before saying anything yourself, you’re learning about the people in the group and about the group itself, thus reducing uncertainty. When uncertainty is reduced, you’re more likely to make contributions that will be appropriate to the group and less likely to violate the group’s norms.
■ Ask. Learn about a person through asking others. You might inquire of a colleague if a third person finds you interesting and might like to have dinner with you.
■ Interact. Interacting with the individual will of course give you considerable information. For example, you can ask questions: “Do you enjoy sports?” “What would you do if you got fired?” You also gain knowledge of another by disclosing information about yourself. These disclosures help to create an environment that encourages disclosures from the person about whom you wish to learn more.

3.4.2.4 Increase Cultural Sensitivity

     Recognizing and being sensitive to cultural differences will help increase your accuracy in perception. For example, Russian or Chinese artists such as ballet dancers will often applaud their audience by clapping. Americans seeing this may easily interpret this as egotistical. Similarly, a German man will enter a restaurant before the woman in order to see if the place is respectable enough for the woman to enter. This simple custom can easily be interpreted as rude when viewed by people from cultures in which it’s considered courteous for the woman to enter first (Axtell, 2007).
     Cultural sensitivity will help counteract the difficulty most people have in understanding the nonverbal messages of people from other cultures. For example, it’s easier to interpret the facial expressions of members of your own culture than those of members of other cultures (Weathers, Frank, & Spell, 2002). This “in-group advantage” will assist your perceptual accuracy for members of your own culture but may hinder your accuracy for members of other cultures (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002).
     Within every cultural group there are wide and important differences. As all Americans are not alike, neither are all Indonesians, Greeks, or Mexicans. When you make assumptions that all people of a certain culture are alike, you’re thinking in stereotypes. Recognizing differences between another culture and your own, and among members of the same culture, will help you perceive people and situations more accurately.
     A summary of impression formation processes and the cautions to be observed is presented in Table 3.4.