Impression formation

Last updated

Impression formation in social psychology refers to the processes by which different pieces of knowledge about another are combined into a global or summary impression. Social psychologist Solomon Asch is credited with the seminal research on impression formation and conducted research on how individuals integrate information about personality traits. [1] Two major models have been proposed to explain how this process of integration takes place. The configural model suggests that people form cohesive impressions by integrating traits into a unified whole, adjusting individual traits to fit an overall context rather than evaluating each trait independently. According to this model, some traits are more schematic and serve as central traits to shape the overall impression. [2] As an individual seeks to form a coherent and meaningful impression of another individual, previous impressions significantly influence the interpretation of subsequent information. [2] In contrast, the algebraic model takes a more additive approach, forming impressions by separately evaluating each trait and then combining these evaluations into an overall summary. A related area to impression formation is the study of person perception, making causal attributions, and then adjusting those inferences based on the information available. [3]

Contents

Methods

Impression formation has traditionally been studied using three methods pioneered by Asch: free response, free association, and a check-list form. In addition, a fourth method based on a Likert scale with anchors such as “very favorable” and “very unfavorable”, has also been used in recent research. [4] A combination of some or all of these techniques is often employed to produce the most accurate assessment of impression formation. Beyond accuracy, the thin slices experiment examined the correlation between first impressions based on brief behavior exposures and more sustained judgments.

Free response

Free response is an experimental method frequently used in impression formation research. The participant (or perceiver) is presented with a stimulus (usually a short vignette or a list of personality descriptors such as assured, talkative, cold, etc.) and then instructed to briefly sketch his or her impressions of the type of person described. This is a useful technique for gathering detailed and concrete evidence on the nature of the impression formed. However, the difficulty of accurately coding responses often necessitates the use of additional quantitative measures. [5]

Free association

Free association is another commonly used experimental method in which the perceiver creates a list of personality adjectives that immediately come to mind when asked to think about the type of person described by a particular set of descriptor adjectives. [6]

Check-list

A check-list consisting of assorted personality descriptors is often used to supplement free response or free association data and to compare group trends. [5] After presenting character-qualities of an imagined individual, perceivers are instructed to select the character adjectives from a preset list that best describe the resulting impression. While this produces an easily quantifiable assessment of an impression, it forces participants' answers into a limited, and often extreme, response set. [5] However, when used in conjunction with the above-mentioned techniques, check-list data provides useful information about the character of impressions.

Likert-type rating scales

Likert-type rating scale Likert scale.jpg
Likert-type rating scale

With Likert scales, perceivers are responding to a presentation of discrete personality characteristics. Common presentation methods include lists of adjectives, photos or videos depicting a scene, or written scenarios. [4] [7] [8] [9] For example, a participant might be asked to answer the question "Would an honest (trait) person ever search for the owner of a lost package (behavior)?" by answering on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 "very unlikely" to 5 "very likely." [10]

Thin slices experiments

In the thin slices experiment, participants are asked to watch brief video clips depicting the target’s behaviors, each lasting a few seconds. They need to then rate the target on various dimensions and provide an overall rating based on the impression from the clips. [2]

Specific results

Primacy-recency effect

Asch stressed the important influence of an individual's initial impressions of a person's personality traits on the interpretation of all subsequent impressions. Asch argued that these early impressions often shaped or colored an individual's perception of other trait-related details. [5] A considerable body of research exists supporting this hypothesis. [11] For example, when individuals were asked to rate their impression of another person after being presented a list of words progressing from either low favorability to high favorability (L - H) or from high favorability to low favorability (H - L), strong primacy effects were found. [7] In other words, impressions formed from initial descriptor adjectives persisted over time and influenced global impressions. In general, primacy can have three main effects: initial trait-information can be integrated into an individual's global impression of a person in a process of assimilation effects, it can lead to a durable impression against which other information is compared in a process of anchoring, and it can cause people to actively change their perception of others in a process of correction. [11]

Valence

Information inconsistent with a person's global impression of another individual is especially prominent in memory. The process of assimilation can lead to causal attributions of personality as this inconsistent information is integrated into the whole. [12] This effect is especially influential when the behavior is perceived as negative. Consistent with negativity bias, negative behaviors are seen as more indicative of an individual's behavior in situations involving moral issues. [13] Extreme negative behavior is also considered more predictive of personality traits than less extreme behavior. [13] However, this reasoning can be flawed, as it can trigger a halo effect, where the influence of a single trait is overestimated, overshadowing other factors.

Central Traits

The emotionality of certain personality traits can influence how subsequent traits are interpreted and ultimately the type of impression formed. [14] For example, when participants are presented with the same list of personality traits, the impression they form can vary notably depending on whether a "warm" trait, as opposed to a “cold” trait is included. People are more likely to perceive an intelligent and warm individual as wise, whereas one described as intelligent and cold tends to be seen as calculating. These traits, which have a disproportionate influence on overall impressions, are referred to as central traits. [2]

History

Classic experiments

In a classic experiment, Solomon Asch's principal theoretical concern revolved around understanding the mechanisms influencing a person's overall impression of others, principally trait centrality and trait valence of various personality characteristics. [5] His research illustrated the influential roles of the primacy effect, valence, and causal attribution on the part of the individual. [4] [9] [10] [15] Based on the findings of ten experiments studying the effect of various personality adjectives on the resulting quality and character of impressions, several key principles of impression formation have been identified:

  1. Individuals have a natural inclination to make global dispositional inferences about the nature of another person's personality.
  2. Individuals expect observed behaviors to reflect stable personality traits.
  3. Individuals attempt to fit information about different traits and behaviors into a meaningful and coherent whole.
  4. Individuals attempt to explain and rationalize inconsistencies when the available information does not fit with the global perception.

Theoretical development

In psychology Fritz Heider's writings on balance theory emphasized that liking or disliking a person depends on how the person is positively or negatively linked to other liked or disliked entities. [16] [17] Heider's later essay on social cognition, [18] along with the development of "psycho-logic" by Robert P. Abelson and Milton J. Rosenberg, [19] embedded evaluative processes in verbal descriptions of actions, with the verb of a descriptive sentence establishing the kind of linkage existing between the actor and object of the sentence. Harry Gollob expanded these insights with his subject-verb-object approach to social cognition, and he showed that evaluations of sentence subjects could be calculated with high precision from out-of-context evaluations of the subject, verb, and object, with part of the evaluative outcome coming from multiplicative interactions among the input evaluations. [20] [21] In a later work, Gollob and Betty Rossman extended the framework to predicting an actor's power and influence. [22] Reid Hastie wrote that "Gollob's extension of the balance model to inferences concerning subject-verb-object sentences is the most important methodological and theoretical development of Heider's principle since its original statement." [23]

Gollob's regression equations for predicting impressions of sentence subjects consisted of weighted summations of out-of-context ratings of the subject, verb, and object, and of multiplicative interactions of the ratings. The equations essentially supported the cognitive algebra approach of Norman H. Anderson's Information integration theory. [24] Anderson, however, initiated a heated technical exchange between himself and Gollob, [25] [26] [27] in which Anderson argued that Gollob's use of the general linear model led to indeterminate theory because it could not completely account for any particular case in the set of cases used to estimate the models. The recondite exchange typified a continuing debate between proponents of contextualism who argue that impressions result from situationally specific influences (e.g., from semantics and nonverbal communication as well as affective factors), and modelers who follow the pragmatic maxim, seeking approximations revealing core mental processes. Another issue in using least-squares estimations is the compounding of measurement error problems with multiplicative variables. [28]

In sociology David R. Heise relabeled Gollob's framework from subject-verb-object to actor-behavior-object in order to allow for impression formation from perceived events as well as from verbal stimuli, and showed that actions produce impressions of behaviors and objects as well as of actors on all three dimensions of Charles E. Osgood's semantic differential—Evaluation, Potency, and Activity. [29] [30] Heise used equations describing impression-formation processes as the empirical basis for his cybernetic theory of action, Affect control theory. [31] [32] [33]

Erving Goffman's book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and his essay "On Face-work" in the book Interaction Ritual focused on how individuals engage in impression management. Using the notion of face as identity is used now, Goffman proposed that individuals maintain face expressively. "By entering a situation in which he is given a face to maintain, a person takes on the responsibility of standing guard over the flow of events as they pass before him. He must ensure that a particular expressive order is sustained-an order that regulates the flow of events, large or small, so that anything that appears to be expressed by them will be consistent with his face." [34] In other words, individuals control events so as to create desired impressions of themselves. Goffman emphasized that individuals in a group operate as a team with everyone committed to helping others maintain their identities. [35]

Impression-formation processes in the US

Ratings of 515 action descriptions by American respondents yielded estimations of a statistical model consisting of nine impression-formation equations, predicting outcome Evaluation, Potency, and Activity of actor, behavior, and object from pre-event ratings of the evaluation, potency, and activity of actor, behavior, and object. The results were reported as maximum-likelihood estimations. [36]

Stability was a factor in every equation, with some pre-action feeling toward an action element transferred to post-action feeling about the same element. Evaluation, Potency, and Activity of behaviors suffused to actors so impressions of actors were determined in part by the behaviors they performed. In general objects of action lost Potency.

Interactions among variables included consistency effects, such as receiving Evaluative credit for performing a bad behavior toward a bad object person, and congruency effects, such as receiving evaluative credit for nice behaviors toward weak objects or bad behaviors toward powerful objects. Third-order interactions included a balance effect in which actors received a boost in evaluation if two or none of the elements in the action were negative, otherwise a decrement. Across all nine prediction equations, more than half of the 64 possible predictors (first-order variables plus second- and third-order interactions) contributed to outcomes. [note 1]

Studies of event descriptions that explicitly specified behavior settings found that impression-formation processes are largely the same when settings are salient, but the setting becomes an additional contributor to impression formation regarding actor, behavior, and object; and the action changes the impression of the setting. [37] [38]

Actor and object are the same person in self-directed actions such as "the lawyer praised himself" or various kinds of self-harm. Impression-formation research [39] indicates that self-directed actions reduce the positivity of actors on the Evaluation, Potency, and Activity dimensions. Self-directed actions therefore are not an optimal way to confirm the good, potent, lively identities that people normally want to maintain. Rather self-directed actions are a likely mode of expression for individuals who want to manifest their low self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Early work on impression formation used action sentences like, "The kind man praises communists," and "Bill helped the corrupt senator," assuming that modifier-noun combinations amalgamate into a functional unit. [20] [22] A later study found that a modifier-noun combination does form an overall impression that works in action descriptions like a noun alone. [40] The action sentences in that study combined identities with status characteristics, traits, moods, and emotions. Another study in 1989 focused specifically on emotion descriptors combined with identities (e.g., an angry child) and again found that emotion terms amalgamate with identities, and equations describing this kind of amalgamation are of the same form as equations describing trait-identity amalgamation. [41]

Cross-cultural studies

Studies of various kinds of impression formation have been conducted in Canada, [42] Japan, [43] [44] [45] and Germany. [46] Core processes are similar cross-culturally. For example, in every culture that has been studied, Evaluation of an actor was determined by-among other things-a stability effect, a suffusion from the behavior Evaluation, and an interaction that rewarded an actor for performing a behavior whose Evaluation was consistent with the Evaluation of the object person.

On the other hand, each culture weighted the core effects distinctively. For example, the impact of behavior-object Evaluation consistency was much smaller in Germany than in the United States, Canada, or Japan, suggesting that moral judgments of actors have a somewhat different basis in Germany than in the other cultures. Additionally, impression-formation processes involved some unique interactions in each culture. For example, attribute-identity amalgamations in Germany involved some Potency and Activity interactions that did not appear in other cultures.

The 2010 book Surveying Cultures reviewed cross-cultural research on impression-formation processes, and provided guidelines for conducting impression-formation studies in cultures where the processes are unexplored currently. [47]

Recent studies

Impression formation is based on the characteristics of both the perceivers and targets. However, research has not been able to quantify the extent to which these two groups contribute to impression. The research was conducted to determine the extent of how impressions originate from ‘our mind’ and ‘target face’. Results demonstrated that perceiver characteristics contribute more than target appearance. [48] Impressions can be made from facial appearance alone and assessments on attributes such as nice, strong, and smart based on variations of the targets’ face. The results show that subtle facial traits have meaningful consequences on impressions, which is true even for young children of 3 years old. [49] Studies have been conducted to study impression formation in social situations rather than situations involving threat. Research reveals that social goals can drive the formation of impressions and that there is flexibility in the possible impressions formed on target faces. [50]

Recent studies on impression formation have highlighted the involvement of several brain regions in processing social and emotional information when forming impression. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been shown to play a key role in evaluating others' traits and intentions, particularly in the context of social judgments. The superior temporal sulcus (STS) is crucial for interpreting social cues, such as facial expressions and body language. Additionally, research has found that the hippocampus helps retrieve past experiences, which can influence the formation of new impressions. Together, these brain regions interact to integrate social information, guiding our judgments and perceptions of others. [51]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Impression-formation effects are described in detail by Heise in Expressive Order, Chapter 6. Ordinary least squares estimations of equations from the 515-event study, and from studies mentioned in this article, can be examined in Interact On-Line (Java applet)

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamental attribution error</span> Psychological phenomenon

In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error is a cognitive attribution bias in which observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors. In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. Although personality traits and predispositions are considered to be observable facts in psychology, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their effects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attitude (psychology)</span> Concept in psychology and communication studies

An attitude "is a summary evaluation of an object of thought. An attitude object can be anything a person discriminates or holds in mind." Attitudes include beliefs (cognition), emotional responses (affect) and behavioral tendencies. In the classical definition an attitude is persistent, while in more contemporary conceptualizations, attitudes may vary depending upon situations, context, or moods.

Actor–observer asymmetry is a bias one makes when forming attributions about the behavior of others or themselves. When people judge their own behavior, they are more likely to attribute their actions to the particular situation rather than their personality also known as a situational attribution. However, when an observer is explaining the behavior of another person, they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the actors' personality rather than situational factors, also known as dispositional attribution. For example, a politician explaining why they voted against war may say it is because the war is not needed. Whereas a person judging why the politician voted in this way may say it is because the politician is too liberal. Showing how the actor explains their behaviour using the situation, but the observer explains their behaviour using the politicians personality.

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

Self-monitoring, a concept introduced in the 1970s by Mark Snyder, describes the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations, expressive behavior, and nonverbal affective displays. Snyder held that human beings generally differ in substantial ways in their abilities and desires to engage in expressive controls. Self-monitoring is defined as a personality trait that refers to an ability to regulate behavior to accommodate social situations. People concerned with their expressive self-presentation tend to closely monitor their audience in order to ensure appropriate or desired public appearances. Self-monitors try to understand how individuals and groups will perceive their actions. Some personality types commonly act spontaneously and others are more apt to purposely control and consciously adjust their behavior. Recent studies suggest that a distinction should be made between acquisitive and protective self-monitoring due to their different interactions with metatraits. This differentiates the motive behind self-monitoring behaviours: for the purpose of acquiring appraisal from others (acquisitive) or protecting oneself from social disapproval (protective).

Attribution is a term used in psychology which deals with how individuals perceive the causes of everyday experience, as being either external or internal. Models to explain this process are called Attribution theory. Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Heider first introduced the concept of perceived 'locus of causality' to define the perception of one's environment. For instance, an experience may be perceived as being caused by factors outside the person's control (external) or it may be perceived as the person's own doing (internal). These initial perceptions are called attributions. Psychologists use these attributions to better understand an individual's motivation and competence. The theory is of particular interest to employers who use it to increase worker motivation, goal orientation, and productivity.

Susan Tufts Fiske is an American psychologist who served as the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs in the Department of Psychology at Princeton University. She is a social psychologist known for her work on social cognition, stereotypes, and prejudice. Fiske leads the Intergroup Relations, Social Cognition, and Social Neuroscience Lab at Princeton University. Her theoretical contributions include the development of the stereotype content model, ambivalent sexism theory, power as control theory, and the continuum model of impression formation.

The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is a cognitive bias that, even when positive or neutral things of equal intensity occur, things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things. In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. The negativity bias has been investigated within many different domains, including the formation of impressions and general evaluations; attention, learning, and memory; and decision-making and risk considerations.

Social perception is the study of how people form impressions of and make inferences about other people as sovereign personalities. Social perception refers to identifying and utilizing social cues to make judgments about social roles, rules, relationships, context, or the characteristics of others. This domain also includes social knowledge, which refers to one's knowledge of social roles, norms, and schemas surrounding social situations and interactions. People learn about others' feelings and emotions by picking up information they gather from physical appearance, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, hand gestures, and body position or movement are a few examples of ways people communicate without words. A real-world example of social perception is understanding that others disagree with what one said when one sees them roll their eyes. There are four main components of social perception: observation, attribution, integration, and confirmation.

John A. Bargh is a social psychologist currently working at Yale University, where he has formed the Automaticity in Cognition, Motivation, and Evaluation (ACME) Laboratory. Bargh's work focuses on automaticity and unconscious processing as a method to better understand social behavior, as well as philosophical topics such as free will. Much of Bargh's work investigates whether behaviors thought to be under volitional control may result from automatic interpretations of and reactions to external stimuli, such as words.

Entitativity refers to the extent to which a group is perceived as a cohesive, unified entity. It describes how much a collection of individuals is seen as "group-like" and bonded by common attributes, such as shared goals or traits. Perceived entitativity occurs when people view an aggregate of individuals as a single entity, attributing to them common characteristics or a collective purpose. Thus, a group is seen as a "real" group when its members' behaviors are seen as stemming from shared goals or traits.

In control theory, affect control theory proposes that individuals maintain affective meanings through their actions and interpretations of events. The activity of social institutions occurs through maintenance of culturally based affective meanings.

Self-enhancement is a type of motivation that works to make people feel good about themselves and to maintain self-esteem. This motive becomes especially prominent in situations of threat, failure or blows to one's self-esteem. Self-enhancement involves a preference for positive over negative self-views. It is one of the three self-evaluation motives along with self-assessment and self-verification . Self-evaluation motives drive the process of self-regulation, that is, how people control and direct their own actions.

In social psychology, illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein people overestimate their own qualities and abilities compared to others. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective measure is known as the overconfidence effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

Thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on "thin slices", or narrow windows, of experience. The term refers to the process of making very quick inferences about the state, characteristics or details of an individual or situation with minimal amounts of information. Research has found that brief judgments based on thin-slicing are similar to those judgments based on much more information. Judgments based on thin-slicing can be as accurate, or even more so, than judgments based on much more information.

Memory supports and enables social interactions in a variety of ways. In order to engage in successful social interaction, people must be able to remember how they should interact with one another, whom they have interacted with previously, and what occurred during those interactions. There are a lot of brain processes and functions that go into the application and use of memory in social interactions, as well as psychological reasoning for its importance.

Personality judgment is the process by which people perceive each other's personalities through acquisition of certain information about others, or meeting others in person. The purpose of studying personality judgment is to understand past behavior exhibited by individuals and predict future behavior. Theories concerning personality judgment focus on the accuracy of personality judgments and the effects of personality judgments on various aspects of social interactions. Determining how people judge personality is important because personality judgments often influence individuals' behaviors.

A zero-acquaintance situation requires a perceiver to make a judgment about a target with whom the perceiver has had no prior social interaction. These judgments can be made using a variety of cues, including brief interactions with the target, video recordings of the target, photographs of the target, and observations of the target's personal environments, among others. In zero-acquaintance studies, the target's actual personality is determined through the target's self-rating and/or ratings from close acquaintance(s) of that target. Consensus in ratings is determined by how consistently perceivers rate the target's personality when compared to other raters. Accuracy in ratings is determined by how well perceivers' ratings of a target compare to that target's self-ratings on the same scale, or to that target's close acquaintances' ratings of the target. Zero-acquaintance judgments are regularly made in day-to-day life. Given that these judgments tend to remain stable, even as the length of interaction increases, they can influence important interpersonal outcomes.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

References

  1. ↑ "Impression Formation, Theories Of". Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological Theories. Retrieved 19 April 2012.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Stangor, Dr Charles (26 September 2014). "Initial Impression Formation".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ↑ Gilbert, Daniel T.; Pelham, Brett W.; Krull, Douglas S. (1 January 1988). "On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54 (5): 733–740. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.733. ISSN   0022-3514.
  4. 1 2 3 Reeder, Glenn D.; Vonk, Roos; Ronk, Marla J.; Ham, Jaap; Lawrence, Melissa (1 January 2004). "Dispositional Attribution: Multiple Inferences About Motive-Related Traits". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (4): 530–544. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.589.2048 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.530. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   15053704.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Asch, S. E. (1 January 1946). "Forming impressions of personality". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 41 (3): 258–290. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.463.2813 . doi:10.1037/h0055756. ISSN   0096-851X. PMID   20995551.
  6. ↑ Sheeran, Paschal; Gollwitzer, Peter M.; Bargh, John A. (2013). "Nonconscious processes and health". Health Psychology. 32 (5): 460–473. doi:10.1037/a0029203. ISSN   1930-7810. PMID   22888816.
  7. 1 2 Anderson, N. H.; Barrios, A. A. (1 January 1961). "Primacy effects in personality impression formation". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 63 (2): 346–350. doi:10.1037/h0046719. ISSN   0096-851X. PMID   13861274.
  8. ↑ Naumann, L. P.; Vazire, S.; Rentfrow, P. J.; Gosling, S. D. (17 September 2009). "Personality Judgments Based on Physical Appearance". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 35 (12): 1661–1671. doi:10.1177/0146167209346309. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   19762717. S2CID   1645636.
  9. 1 2 Roese, Neal J.; Morris, Michael W. (1 January 1999). "Impression valence constrains social explanations: The case of discounting versus conjunction effects". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (3): 437–448. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.437. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   10510503.
  10. 1 2 Skowronski, John J.; Carlston, Donal E. (1 January 1989). "Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations". Psychological Bulletin. 105 (1): 131–142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131.
  11. 1 2 DeCoster, Jamie; Claypool, Heather M. (1 February 2004). "A Meta-Analysis of Priming Effects on Impression Formation Supporting a General Model of Informational Biases". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 8 (1): 2–27. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_1. PMID   15121538. S2CID   40990718.
  12. ↑ Heider, F. (1 January 1944). "Social perception and phenomenal causality". Psychological Review. 51 (6): 358–374. doi:10.1037/h0055425.
  13. 1 2 Skowronski, John J.; Carlston, Donal E. (1 January 1989). "Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations". Psychological Bulletin. 105 (1): 131–142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131.
  14. ↑ Sanders, Meghan S. (May 2010). "Making a Good (Bad) Impression: Examining the Cognitive Processes of Disposition Theory to Form a Synthesized Model of Media Character Impression Formation". Communication Theory. 20 (2): 147–168. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01358.x.
  15. ↑ Anderson, Norman H. (1 January 1965). "Primacy effects in personality impression formation using a generalized order effect paradigm". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1037/h0021966. PMID   14313838.
  16. ↑ Heider, Fritz (January 1946). "Attitudes and Cognitive Organization". The Journal of Psychology. 21 (1): 107–112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275. ISSN   0022-3980. PMID   21010780.
  17. ↑ Heider, Fritz (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley. doi:10.1037/10628-000. ISBN   9780898592825.
  18. ↑ Heider, F. (1966). "On social cognition". The American Psychologist. 22 (1): 25–31. doi:10.1037/h0024299. ISSN   0003-066X. PMID   6034980.
  19. ↑ Abelson, Robert P.; Rosenberg, Milton J. (16 February 2007). "Symbolic psycho-logic: A model of attitudinal cognition". Behavioral Science. 3 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1002/bs.3830030102. ISSN   0005-7940.
  20. 1 2 Gollob, Harry F. (1968). "Impression formation and word combination in sentences". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10 (4): 341–353. doi:10.1037/h0026822.
  21. ↑ Gollob, H. F. (1974). "A subject-verb-object approach to social coginition". Psychological Review. 81 (4): 286–321. doi:10.1037/h0036591.
  22. 1 2 Gollob, Harry F.; Rossman, Betty B. (1 September 1973). "Judgments of an actor's "power and ability to influence others"". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 9 (5): 391–406. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(73)80004-6. ISSN   0022-1031 . Retrieved 1 November 2018.
  23. ↑ Hastie, R (January 1983). "Social Inference". Annual Review of Psychology. 34 (1): 511–542. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.34.020183.002455. ISSN   0066-4308., p. 535
  24. ↑ Anderson, Norman H. (2008). Unified Social Cognition. Psychology Press.
  25. ↑ Anderson, Norman H. (1977). "Some Problems in Using Analysis of Variance in Balance Theory". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35 (3): 140–158. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.3.140.
  26. ↑ Gollob, H. F. (1979). "A Reply to Norman H. Anderson's Critique of the Subject-Verb-Object Approach to Social Cognition". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (6): 931–949. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.931.
  27. ↑ Anderson, N.H. (1979). "Indeterminate Theory: Reply to Gollob". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (6): 950–952. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.950.
  28. ↑ Heise, David R. (1986). "Estimating nonlinear models: Correcting for measurement error". Sociological Methods & Research. 14: 447–472. doi:10.1177/0049124186014004005. S2CID   121078061.
  29. ↑ Heise, David R. (1969). "Affective dynamics in simple sentences". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 11 (3): 204–213. doi:10.1037/h0027050. PMID   5784263.
  30. ↑ Heise, D. R. (1970). "Potency dynamics in simple sentences". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16: 48–54. doi:10.1037/h0030084.
  31. ↑ Heise, D. R. (1977). "Social action as the control of affect". Behavioral Science. 22 (3): 163–177. doi:10.1002/bs.3830220303.
  32. ↑ Heise, D. R. (1979). Understanding Events: Affect and the Construction of Social Action. Cambridge University Press.
  33. ↑ Heise, D. R. (2007). Expressive Order: Confirming Sentiments in Social Actions. Springer.
  34. ↑ Goffman, Erving (1967). "On Face-work". Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books. p. 9.
  35. ↑ Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Bppks.
  36. ↑ Smith-Lovin, Lynn (1988). "Impressions from events". In Smith-Lovin, L.; Heise, D. R. (eds.). Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances in Affect Control Theory. Gordon and Breach. pp. 35–70.
  37. ↑ Smith-Lovin, Lynn (1979). "Behavior settings and impressions formed from social scenarios" Social Psychology Quarterly42: 31–43
  38. ↑ Smith-Lovin, Lynn (1988). "The affective control of events within settings". In Smith-Lovin, L.; Heise, D. R. (eds.). Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances in Affect Control Theory. Gordon and Breach. pp. 71–102.
  39. ↑ Britt, Lory, and D. R. Heise (1992). "Impressions of self-directed action." Social Psychology Quarterly55: 335–350
  40. ↑ Averett, Christine P.; Heise, D. R. (1988). "Modified social identities: Amalgamations, attributions, and emotions". In Smith-Lovin, L.; Heise, D. R. (eds.). Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances in Affect Control Theory. Gordon and Breach. pp. 103–132.
  41. ↑ Heise, D. R.; Thomas, Lisa (1989). "Predicting impressions created by combinations of emotion and social identity". Social Psychology Quarterly. 52 (2): 141–148. doi:10.2307/2786913. JSTOR   2786913.
  42. ↑ MacKinnon, Neil J., Final Reports to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada on Projects 410-81-0089, 410-86-0794, and 410-94-0087, Guelph, Ontario: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph
  43. ↑ Smith, Herman W.; Matsuno, Takanori; Umino, Michio (1994). "How similar are impression-formation processes among Japanese and Americans?". Social Psychology Quarterly. 57 (2): 124–139. doi:10.2307/2786706. JSTOR   2786706.
  44. ↑ Smith, H. W. (2002). "The dynamics of Japanese and American interpersonal events: Behavioral settings versus personality traits". Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 26 (1–2): 71–92. doi:10.1080/00222500210524. S2CID   119633378.
  45. ↑ Smith, H. W.; Francis, Linda E. (2005). "Social versus self-directed events among Japanese and Americans: Self-actualization, emotions, moods, and trait disposition labeling". Social Forces. 84: 821–830. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0035. S2CID   143653483.
  46. ↑ Schröder, Tobias (2011). "A Model of Language-Based Impression Formation and Attribution Among Germans". Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 30: 82–102. doi:10.1177/0261927X10387103. S2CID   145128817.
  47. ↑ Heise, D. R. (2010). Surveying Cultures: Discovering Shared Conceptions and Sentiments. Wiley Interscience.
  48. ↑ Xie, Sally Y.; Flake, Jessica K.; Hehman, Eric (August 2019). "Perceiver and target characteristics contribute to impression formation differently across race and gender". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 117 (2): 364–385. doi:10.1037/pspi0000160. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   30550328. S2CID   54602145.
  49. ↑ Charlesworth, Tessa E. S.; Hudson, Sa-kiera T. J.; Cogsdill, Emily J.; Spelke, Elizabeth S.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (July 2019). "Children use targets' facial appearance to guide and predict social behavior". Developmental Psychology. 55 (7): 1400–1413. doi:10.1037/dev0000734. ISSN   1939-0599. PMID   30998034. S2CID   122364762.
  50. ↑ Collova, Jemma R.; Sutherland, Clare A. M.; Rhodes, Gillian (6 June 2019). "Testing the functional basis of first impressions: Dimensions for children's faces are not the same as for adults' faces". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 117 (5): 900–924. doi:10.1037/pspa0000167. hdl: 2164/12959 . ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   31169388. S2CID   174816668.
  51. ↑ Ames, Daniel L.; Fiske, Susan T.; Todorov, Alexander T. (12 September 2011). "Impression Formation: A Focus on Others' Intents". Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342161.013.0028.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.