social perception theory essay

3 minute read

Jerome S. Bruner

1915- American psychologist and educator whose principal areas of study are in the fields of cognitive psychology and language development.

Jerome S. Bruner was born in New York City and educated at Duke University. During World War II, Bruner worked on the subject of propaganda and popular attitudes for U.S. Army intelligence at General Dwight D. Eisenhower's headquarters in France. He obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1947, after which he became a member of the faculty, serving as professor of psychology, as well as cofounder and director of the Center for Cognitive Studies. In 1972 Bruner left Harvard to teach for several years at Oxford University. He returned to Harvard as a visiting professor in 1979 and two years later joined the faculty of the new School for Social Research in New York City. Bruner's early work in cognitive psychology focused on the sequences of decisions made by subjects as part of their problem-solving strategies in experimental situations.

Beginning in the 1940s, Bruner, together with his colleague Leo Postman, did important work on the ways in which needs, motivations, and expectations (or "mental sets") affect perception . Their approach, sometimes referred to as the "New Look," contrasted a functional perspective with the prevailing "formal" one that treated perception as a self-sufficient process to be considered separately from the world around it. When Bruner and Postman showed young children toys and plain blocks of equal height, the children, expecting toys to be larger than blocks, thought the toys were taller. The toys also seemed to increase in size when the researchers made them unavailable. In further experiments involving mental sets, the two scientists used an instrument called a tachistoscope to show their subjects brief views of playing cards, including some nonstandard cards, such as a red ace of

Jerome S. Bruner ( Archives of the History of American Psychology . Reproduced with permission.)

spades. As long as the subjects were not alerted to the presence of the abnormal cards, almost none saw them.

Bruner's work in cognitive psychology led to an interest in the cognitive development of children and related issues of education, and in the 1960s he developed a theory of cognitive growth. Bruner's theories, which approach development from a different angle than those of Jean Piaget , focus on the environmental and experiential factors influencing each individual's specific development pattern. His argument that human intellectual ability develops in stages from infancy to adulthood through step-by-step progress in how the mind is used has influenced experimental psychologists and educators throughout the world. Bruner is particularly interested in language and other representations of human thought. In one of his best-known papers, Bruner defines three modes of representing, or "symbolizing," human thought. The enactive mode involves human motor capacities and includes activities such as using tools. The iconic mode pertains to sensory capacities. Finally, the symbolic mode involves reasoning, and is exemplified by language, which plays a central role in Bruner's theories of cognition and development. He has called it "a means, not only for representing experience, but also for transforming it."

Bruner's view that the student should become an active participant in the educational process has been widely accepted. In The Process of Education (1960) he asserts that, given the appropriate teaching method, every child can successfully study any subject at any stage of his or her intellectual development. Bruner's later work involves the study of the pre-speech developmental processes and linguistic communication skills in children. The Relevance of Education (1971) applied his theories to infant development. Bruner was appointed a visiting member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University. In 1963, he received the Distinguished Scientific Award from the American Psychological Association , and in 1965 he served as its president. Bruner's expertise in the field of education led to his appointment to the President's Advisory Panel of Education, and he has also advised agencies of the United Nations. Bruner's books include A Study of Thinking (1956), On Knowing: Essays For the Left Hand (1962), On Knowing (1964), Toward a Theory of Instruction (1966), Processes of Cognitive Growth (1968), Beyond the Information Given (1973), and Child's Talk (1983).

See also Child development ; Cognitive development ; Developmental psychology

Further Reading

Bruner, Jerome S. In Search of Mind: Essays in Autobiography. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.

Additional topics

• John Bowlby
• Jerome Kagan - Questions environmental determinism, Questions continuity of development and parental influences
• Other Free Encyclopedias

Psychology Encyclopedia Famous Psychologists & Scientists

Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions, and goals are constructed within a social context by the actual or imagined interactions with others.

It, therefore, looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the conditions under which social behavior and feelings occur.

Baron, Byrne, and Suls (1989) define social psychology as “the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations” (p. 6).

Topics examined in social psychology include the self-concept , social cognition, attribution theory , social influence, group processes, prejudice and discrimination , interpersonal processes, aggression, attitudes , and stereotypes .

Social psychology operates on several foundational assumptions. These fundamental beliefs provide a framework for theories, research, and interpretations.

• Individual and Society Interplay : Social psychologists assume an interplay exists between individual minds and the broader social context. An individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are continuously shaped by social interactions, and in turn, individuals influence the societies they are a part of.
• Behavior is Contextual : One core assumption is that behavior can vary significantly based on the situation or context. While personal traits and dispositions matter, the circumstances or social environment often play a decisive role in determining behavior.
• Objective Reality is Difficult to Attain : Our perceptions of reality are influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms, and past experiences. Therefore, our understanding of “reality” is subjective and can be biased or distorted.
• Social Reality is Constructed : Social psychologists believe that individuals actively construct their social world . Through processes like social categorization, attribution, and cognitive biases, people create their understanding of others and societal norms.
• People are Social Beings with a Need to Belong : A fundamental assumption is the inherent social nature of humans. People have an innate need to connect with others, form relationships, and belong to groups. This need influences a wide range of behaviors and emotions.
• Attitudes Influence Behavior : While this might seem straightforward, it’s a foundational belief that our attitudes (combinations of beliefs and feelings) can and often do drive our actions. However, it’s also understood that this relationship can be complex and bidirectional.
• People Desire Cognitive Consistency : This is the belief that people are motivated to maintain consistency in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory , which posits that people feel discomfort when holding conflicting beliefs and are motivated to resolve this, is based on this assumption.
• People are Motivated to See Themselves in a Positive Light : The self plays a central role in social psychology. It’s assumed that individuals are generally motivated to maintain and enhance a positive self-view.
• Behavior Can be Predicted and Understood : An underlying assumption of any science, including social psychology, is that phenomena (in this case, human behavior in social contexts) can be studied, understood, predicted, and potentially influenced.
• Cultural and Biological Factors are Integral : Though earlier social psychology might have been criticized for neglecting these factors, contemporary social psychology acknowledges the roles of both biology (genes, hormones, brain processes) and culture (norms, values, traditions) in shaping social behavior.

Early Influences

Aristotle believed that humans were naturally sociable, a necessity that allows us to live together (an individual-centered approach), whilst Plato felt that the state controlled the individual and encouraged social responsibility through social context (a socio-centered approach).

Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the concept that society has inevitable links with the development of the social mind. This led to the idea of a group mind, which is important in the study of social psychology.

Lazarus & Steinthal wrote about Anglo-European influences in 1860. “Volkerpsychologie” emerged, which focused on the idea of a collective mind.

It emphasized the notion that personality develops because of cultural and community influences, especially through language, which is both a social product of the community as well as a means of encouraging particular social thought in the individual. Therefore Wundt (1900–1920) encouraged the methodological study of language and its influence on the social being.

Early Texts

Texts focusing on social psychology first emerged in the 20th century. McDougall published the first notable book in English in 1908 (An Introduction to Social Psychology), which included chapters on emotion and sentiment, morality, character, and religion, quite different from those incorporated in the field today.

He believed social behavior was innate/instinctive and, therefore, individual, hence his choice of topics.  This belief is not the principle upheld in modern social psychology, however.

Allport’s work (1924) underpins current thinking to a greater degree, as he acknowledged that social behavior results from interactions between people.

He also took a methodological approach, discussing actual research and emphasizing that the field was a “science … which studies the behavior of the individual in so far as his behavior stimulates other individuals, or is itself a reaction to this behavior” (1942: p. 12).

His book also dealt with topics still evident today, such as emotion, conformity, and the effects of an audience on others.

Murchison (1935) published The first handbook on social psychology was published by Murchison in 1935.  Murphy & Murphy (1931/37) produced a book summarizing the findings of 1,000 studies in social psychology.  A text by Klineberg (1940) looked at the interaction between social context and personality development. By the 1950s, several texts were available on the subject.

Journal Development

• 1950s – Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

• 1963 – Journal of Personality, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

• 1965 – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

• 1971 – Journal of Applied Social Psychology, European Journal of Social Psychology

• 1975 – Social Psychology Quarterly, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

• 1982 – Social Cognition

• 1984 – Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Early Experiments

There is some disagreement about the first true experiment, but the following are certainly among some of the most important.

Triplett (1898) applied the experimental method to investigate the performance of cyclists and schoolchildren on how the presence of others influences overall performance – thus, how individuals are affected and behave in the social context.

By 1935, the study of social norms had developed, looking at how individuals behave according to the rules of society. This was conducted by Sherif (1935).

Lewin et al. then began experimental research into leadership and group processes by 1939, looking at effective work ethics under different leadership styles.

Later Developments

Much of the key research in social psychology developed following World War II, when people became interested in the behavior of individuals when grouped together and in social situations. Key studies were carried out in several areas.

Some studies focused on how attitudes are formed, changed by the social context, and measured to ascertain whether a change has occurred.

Amongst some of the most famous works in social psychology is that on obedience conducted by Milgram in his “electric shock” study, which looked at the role an authority figure plays in shaping behavior.  Similarly,  Zimbardo’s prison simulation notably demonstrated conformity to given roles in the social world.

Wider topics then began to emerge, such as social perception, aggression, relationships, decision-making, pro-social behavior, and attribution, many of which are central to today’s topics and will be discussed throughout this website.

Thus, the growth years of social psychology occurred during the decades following the 1940s.

The scope of social psychology is vast, reflecting the myriad ways social factors intertwine with individual cognition and behavior.

Its principles and findings resonate in virtually every area of human interaction, making it a vital field for understanding and improving the human experience.

• Interpersonal Relationships : This covers attraction, love, jealousy, friendship, and group dynamics. Understanding how and why relationships form and the factors that contribute to their maintenance or dissolution is central to this domain.
• Attitude Formation and Change : How do individuals form opinions and attitudes? What methods can effectively change them? This scope includes the study of persuasion, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance.
• Social Cognition : This examines how people process, store, and apply information about others. Areas include social perception, heuristics, stereotypes, and attribution theories.
• Social Influence : The study of conformity, compliance, obedience, and the myriad ways individuals influence one another falls within this domain.
• Group Dynamics : This entails studying group behavior, intergroup relations, group decision-making processes, leadership, and more. Concepts like groupthink and group polarization emerge from this area.
• Prejudice and Discrimination : Understanding the roots of bias, racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as well as exploring interventions to reduce them, is a significant focus.
• Self and Identity : Investigating self-concept, self-esteem, self-presentation, and the social construction of identity are all part of this realm.
• Prosocial Behavior and Altruism : Why do individuals sometimes help others, even at a cost to themselves? This area delves into the motivations and conditions that foster cooperative and altruistic behavior.
• Aggression : From understanding the underlying causes of aggressive behavior to studying societal factors that exacerbate or mitigate aggression, this topic seeks to dissect the nature of hostile actions.
• Cultural and Cross-cultural Dimensions : As societies become more interconnected, understanding cultural influences on behavior, cognition, and emotion is crucial. This area compares and contrasts behaviors across different cultures and societal groups.
• Environmental and Applied Settings : Social psychology principles find application in health psychology, environmental behavior, organizational behavior, consumer behavior, and more.
• Social Issues : Social psychologists might study the impact of societal structures on individual behavior, exploring topics like poverty, urban stress, and crime.
• Education : Principles of social psychology enhance teaching methods, address issues of classroom dynamics, and promote effective learning.
• Media and Technology : In the digital age, understanding the effects of media consumption, the dynamics of online communication, and the formation of online communities is increasingly relevant.
• Law : Insights from social psychology inform areas such as jury decision-making, eyewitness testimony, and legal procedures.
• Health : Concepts from social psychology are employed to promote health behaviors, understand doctor-patient dynamics, and tackle issues like addiction.

Example Theories

Allport (1920) – social facilitation.

Allport introduced the notion that the presence of others (the social group) can facilitate certain behavior.

It was found that an audience would improve an actor’s performance in well-learned/easy tasks but leads to a decrease in performance on newly learned/difficult tasks due to social inhibition.

Bandura (1963) Social Learning Theory

Bandura introduced the notion that behavior in the social world could be modeled. Three groups of children watched a video where an adult was aggressive towards a ‘bobo doll,’ and the adult was either just seen to be doing this, was rewarded by another adult for their behavior, or was punished for it.

Children who had seen the adult rewarded were found to be more likely to copy such behavior.

Festinger (1950) –  Cognitive Dissonance

Festinger, Schacter, and Black brought up the idea that when we hold beliefs, attitudes, or cognitions which are different, then we experience dissonance – this is an inconsistency that causes discomfort.

We are motivated to reduce this by either changing one of our thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes or selectively attending to information that supports one of our beliefs and ignores the other (selective exposure hypothesis).

Dissonance occurs when there are difficult choices or decisions or when people participate in behavior that is contrary to their attitude. Dissonance is thus brought about by effort justification (when aiming to reach a modest goal), induced compliance (when people are forced to comply contrary to their attitude), and free choice (when weighing up decisions).

Tajfel (1971) –  Social Identity Theory

When divided into artificial (minimal) groups, prejudice results simply from the awareness that there is an “out-group” (the other group).

When the boys were asked to allocate points to others (which might be converted into rewards) who were either part of their own group or the out-group, they displayed a strong in-group preference. That is, they allocated more points on the set task to boys who they believed to be in the same group as themselves.

This can be accounted for by Tajfel & Turner’s social identity theory, which states that individuals need to maintain a positive sense of personal and social identity: this is partly achieved by emphasizing the desirability of one’s own group, focusing on distinctions between other “lesser” groups.

Weiner (1986) – Attribution Theory

Weiner was interested in the attributions made for experiences of success and failure and introduced the idea that we look for explanations of behavior in the social world.

He believed that these were made based on three areas: locus, which could be internal or external; stability, which is whether the cause is stable or changes over time: and controllability.

Milgram (1963) – Shock Experiment

Participants were told that they were taking part in a study on learning but always acted as the teacher when they were then responsible for going over paired associate learning tasks.

When the learner (a stooge) got the answer wrong, they were told by a scientist that they had to deliver an electric shock. This did not actually happen, although the participant was unaware of this as they had themselves a sample (real!) shock at the start of the experiment.

They were encouraged to increase the voltage given after each incorrect answer up to a maximum voltage, and it was found that all participants gave shocks up to 300v, with 65 percent reaching the highest level of 450v.

It seems that obedience is most likely to occur in an unfamiliar environment and in the presence of an authority figure, especially when covert pressure is put upon people to obey. It is also possible that it occurs because the participant felt that someone other than themselves was responsible for their actions.

Haney, Banks, Zimbardo (1973) – Stanford Prison Experiment

Volunteers took part in a simulation where they were randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or guard and taken to a converted university basement resembling a prison environment. There was some basic loss of rights for the prisoners, who were unexpectedly arrested, and given a uniform and an identification number (they were therefore deindividuated).

The study showed that conformity to social roles occurred as part of the social interaction, as both groups displayed more negative emotions, and hostility and dehumanization became apparent.

Prisoners became passive, whilst the guards assumed an active, brutal, and dominant role. Although normative and informational social influence played a role here, deindividuation/the loss of a sense of identity seemed most likely to lead to conformity.

Both this and Milgram’s study introduced the notion of social influence and the ways in which this could be observed/tested.

Provides Clear Predictions

As a scientific discipline, social psychology prioritizes formulating clear and testable hypotheses. This clarity facilitates empirical testing, ensuring the field’s findings are based on observable and quantifiable phenomena.

The Asch conformity experiments hypothesized that individuals would conform to a group’s incorrect judgment.

The clear prediction allowed for controlled experimentation to determine the extent and conditions of such conformity.

Emphasizes Objective Measurement

Social psychology leans heavily on empirical methods, emphasizing objectivity. This means that results are less influenced by biases or subjective interpretations.

Double-blind procedures , controlled settings, and standardized measures in many social psychology experiments ensure that results are replicable and less prone to experimenter bias.

Empirical Evidence

Over the years, a multitude of experiments in social psychology have bolstered the credibility of its theories. This experimental validation lends weight to its findings and claims.

The robust body of experimental evidence supporting cognitive dissonance theory, from Festinger’s initial studies to more recent replications, showcases the theory’s enduring strength and relevance.

Limitations

Underestimates individual differences.

While social psychology often looks at broad trends and general behaviors, it can sometimes gloss over individual differences.

Not everyone conforms, obeys, or reacts in the same way, and these nuanced differences can be critical.

While Milgram’s obedience experiments showcased a startling rate of compliance to authority, there were still participants who resisted, and their reasons and characteristics are equally important to understand.

Ignores Biology

While social psychology focuses on the social environment’s impact on behavior, early theories sometimes neglect the biological underpinnings that play a role.

Hormones, genetics, and neurological factors can influence behavior and might intersect with social factors in complex ways.

The role of testosterone in aggressive behavior is a clear instance where biology intersects with the social. Ignoring such biological components can lead to an incomplete understanding.

Superficial Snapshots of Social Processes

Social psychology sometimes offers a narrow view, capturing only a momentary slice of a broader, evolving process. This might mean that the field fails to capture the depth, evolution, or intricacies of social processes over time.

A study might capture attitudes towards a social issue at a single point in time, but not account for the historical evolution, future shifts, or deeper societal underpinnings of those attitudes.

Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3(3), 159.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Response to social stimulation in the group. Social psychology , 260-291.

Allport, F. H. (1942). Methods in the study of collective action phenomena. The Journal of Social Psychology , 15(1), 165-185.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(6), 601.

Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Suls, J. (1989). Attitudes: Evaluating the social world. Baron et al, Social Psychology . 3rd edn. MA: Allyn and Bacon, 79-101.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups .

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews , 9(1-17).

Klineberg, O. (1940). The problem of personality .

Krewer, B., & Jahoda, G. (1860). On the scope of Lazarus and Steinthals “Völkerpsychologie” as reflected in the. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, 1890, 4-12.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology , 10(2), 269-299.

Mcdougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology . Londres: Methuen.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(4), 371.

Murchison, C. (1935). A handbook of social psychology .

Murphy, G., & Murphy, L. B. (1931). Experimental social psychology .

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University).

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European journal of social psychology , 1(2), 149-178.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American journal of Psychology , 9(4), 507-533.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . New York: Springer-Verlag.

• Request new password
• Create a new account

An Introduction to Social Psychology

Global perspectives, student resources, social perception and cognition, chapter overview.

In forming impressions of people we use information about personality traits as they are revealed in specific situations. The evidence indicates that we follow a weighted averaging model in combining such information to form an impression of the person. In this process we are influenced by a number of biases such as the tendencies to be influenced more by certain salient characteristics (central traits) than by others, to rate people positively, and to be influenced more by negative rather than positive information. In addition, we have our own assumptions about personality (implicit personality theory) which influence what we notice about people and how we interpret that information. In trying to understand why people behave the way they do we make attributions of causality. When we make attributions, we tend to discount alternative possible explanations, and we tend to see cause and effect in events which occur together in time. Social psychologists have developed several theories about how we make attributions: the correspondent inferences model, in which logical inferences regarding whether the act was freely chosen and noncommon are combined with the relatively greater impact of acts which affect us and which we believe the actor intended to help or harm us; the covariation model, in which we use consensus, consistency and distinctiveness information to make interpersonal attributions; and the achievement attributions model, which explains how we attribute success of failure to internal or external, controllable or uncontrollable, and stable or unstable causes. Several attributional biases have been identified: the fundamental attribution error, the actor/observer bias, the self-serving bias, and the illusion of control. Finally defensive attributions and the role of culture and attributional bias are discussed.

The chapter then turns to subtle processes of social cognition, the construction of our own view of reality and the many shortcuts we take to get there. We form impressions of others and make social judgements quite rapidly. Without being consciously aware of it, we are frequently selective in the information we choose to process. We use categorical thinking and heuristics in processing. We may use prototypes and stereotypes, and social schemata for persons and events (scripts). We reduce information processing demands by using heuristics: the representativeness heuristic, in which an object is seen as typical of its category; the availability heuristic, in which we use whatever first comes to mind; the simulation heuristic, in which something becomes more likely if it can be imagined; illusory correlations, in which events seem to be causally related if they occur together, and the false consensus bias, in which people overestimate the extent to which others agree with them. Finally, social cognition is influenced by individual differences in integrative complexity.

KEYWORDS: attribution biases, attribution theory, cognitive heuristics, construal level, counterfactual thinking, dual-process models of cognition, impression formation, schema

True/False Questions

1. Our memory of past events is often influenced by schemas of what should have happened.

2. A social representation of a political philosophy or program may develop in part through objectification such as by personification in which the philosophy is linked to the leader.

3. The belief in a just world is based on the illusion of control.

4. Regardless of what happens, we are predisposed to hold people responsible for their own actions and consequences.

5. We tend to look for attributions when something that is unexpected happens.

6. Because of schemas we may see the past through rose-coloured glasses.

7. Studies show that when we evaluate a group, we are strongly influenced by information about how typical a given example is of that group.

8. In forming impressions of people we tend to accentuate the positive and ignore negative information.

9. The study in which participants were asked to guess the occupation of Steve, whose name was selected from a group of 100, demonstrates that we often ignore base rate information and instead rely on the representativeness heuristic.

10. We tend to believe that we can control our environment and that people get what they deserve in life.

True/False Answers

Multiple-choice questions.

MCQ's for Chapter 2

Short Answer Questions

1. What is the dual-process model about? What is meant by fast thinking and slow thinking?

2. What are the five cues which influence us to make a correspondent inference?

3. Outline Kelley’s covariation model.

4. Outline the biases in attributions.

5. Describe and give an example of a prototype and a stereotype.

6. Identify and give examples of three types of social schemata.

7. Identify two processes by which social schemata emerge and develop.

8. Describe the heuristic biases which influence our social thinking.

9. How is our thinking influenced by priming and availability?

10. What has integrative complexity to do with individual differences in social cognition? 

Essay Questions

1. Given what we know about schematic processing and the use of heuristics, discuss whether the statement at the beginning of the chapter in the textbook, ‘Reality is something the human race doesn’t handle very well,’ is justified.

2. Referring to the use of specific mental representations and strategies, discuss whether people are efficient processors of social information. Does our effort to be efficient have a price? If so, what is this price and is it too high?

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Stereotypes and Social Perception

DOI link for Stereotypes and Social Perception

Click here to navigate to parent product.

Social perception: This essay reviews classic and contemporary research on stereotyping, person perception, and attribution theory with an emphasis on the numerous reasons why we are often quick to prejudge others and to assume that the behaviour of others often reflects their enduring personal traits.

Stereotypes and prejudice: This essay summarizes our current knowledge of the crucially important topics of stereotypes and prejudice (e.g., How do they differ from discrimination? Does a belief have to be inaccurate to be a stereotype?) The essay a simple and memorable model to summarize a great deal of work on these topics: Stereotypes simplify, stereotypes justify, and stereotypes identify.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Social Perception and Stereotyping: An Interpersonal and Intercultural Approach

• Published: June 2001
• Volume 30 , pages 183–209, ( 2001 )

Cite this article

• Yueh-Ting Lee 1 ,
• Linda Albright 2 &
• Thomas E. Malloy 3  

174 Accesses

7 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Social perception and stereotyping have been important issues in social and cross-cultural psychology for most of the 20th century. After briefly reviewing its history, the current article discusses social perception and stereotyping from the interpersonal and the cross-cultural perspective. Specifically, these issues are presented along a dimension ranging from intraindividual, to intragroup, to intergroup perception. First, the discussion of interpersonal perception emphasizes social perception in a face-to-face context. Though this section may appear to be technical and complicated to some readers, this level of detail is necessary to elaborate a most basic version of the componential approach to interpersonal perception. Second, the section on social stereotypes discusses social identity theory and the ingroup and outgroup homogeneity effects. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of lingering concerns in research on social perception and stereotypes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Mindsets About Malleability and Intergroup Relations

People perception and stereotype-based responding: task context matters

Social Categories Create and Reflect Inequality: Psychological and Sociological Insights

Albright, L. (1995). The role of approaches of Brunswik, Campbell, & Cronbach in the evolution of research on social perception . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Washington: DC.

Albright, L., Dong, Q., Malloy, T. E., Kenny, D. A., & Yu, D. (1996). Interpersonal perception at zero-acquaintance in Chinese culture . Unpublished manuscript, Westfield State College. Person and Group Perception, Lee/Albright/Malloy 203

Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55 , 387–395.

Google Scholar  

Albright, L., & Malloy, T. E. (1999). Self-observation of social behavior and metaperception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 726–734.

Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., Dong, Q., Kenny, D. A., & Fang, X. (1997). Cross-cultural consensus in personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 (3), 558–569.

Allen, V. L. (1985). Intra-group, intra-group and intergroup: Construing levels of organizations in social influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 217–238). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation . New York: Henry Holt.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–46). New York: Random House.

Ambady, N., Mallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 518–529.

Aronson, E. (1992). Social animal (6th ed.) New York: W. H. Freeman.

Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ashmore, D. R., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 1–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baron, R. M. (1995). An ecological view of stereotype accuracy. In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 115–140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Baron, R. M., Albright, L., & Malloy, T. (1995). Effect of behavioral and social class information on social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 21 , 308–315.

Berry, J., Poortinga, Y., Pandey, J., Dasen, P., Saraswathi, T. S., Segall, M., & Kagitçibasi, C. (1996), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 , 5–20.

Brehm, S. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1996). Social psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Brewer, M. B., Dull, V., & Lui, L. (1981). Perception of the elderly: Stereotypes as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 656–670.

Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Brown, R., & Smith, A. (1989). Perceptions of and by minority groups: The case of women in academia. European Journal of Social Psychology , 19 , 61–75.

Brown, R. J. (1988). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Brown, R. J., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The criss-cross categorization effect in intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 18 , 371–383.

Bruner, J. S., & Perlmutter, H. W. (1957). Compatriot and foreigner: A study of impression formation in three countries. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55 (2), 253–260.

Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. (1954). The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 634–654). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Buss, A. H., & Portnoy, N. W. (1967). Pain tolerance and group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 6 , 106–108.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.

Campbell, D. T. (1967). Stereotypes and the perception of group differences. American Psychologist, 22, 817–829.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin , 56 , 81–105.

Corneille, O., Judd, C., & Yzerbyt, V. (1999). A Small International Forum on Perceived Homogeneity and Entitativity [in memory of Donald Campbell]. Social Psychological Conference held at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve in Brussels, Belgium on July 3–5.

Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity.” Psychological Bulletin , 52 , 177–193.

Darwin, C. (1872/1965). The expression of emotions in man and animals . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Devine, P. G., Hamilton, D. L., & Ostrom, T. M. (1994). Social cognition: Impact on social psychology . New York: Academic Press.

Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence for universals in facial expressions: A reply to Russell's mistaken critique. Psychological Bulletin , 115 , 268–287.

Feshbach, S., & Singer, R. (1957). The effect of personal and shared threats upon social prejudice. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 54 (3), 411–416.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison. Human Relations , 7 , 117–140.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston, IL: Row-Peterson.

Fishman, J. A. (1956). An examination of the process and function of social stereotyping. Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 26–64.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology , 44 , 155–194.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Funder, D. (1995). Stereotypes, base rates, and the fundamental attribution mistake: A content-based approach to judgmental accuracy. In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. Mc-Cauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 141–156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Funder, D., Furr, R. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2000). The Riverside Behavioral Q-sort: A tool for the description of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 68 , 451–489.

Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101 (1), 75–90.

Funder, D. C. (1991). Judgments of personality: A new approach to the accuracy issue. In R. Hogan (Series Ed.), Perspectives in personality: Part B. A Research Annual: Vol. 3. Approaches to understanding lives (pp. 107–132). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Gao, J-F. (1982). The history of Western contemporary psychology (in Chinese). Beijing, China: Chinese Higher Education Press.

Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (1998). The handbook of social psychology (4 th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Goethals, G. R., Allison, S. T., & Frost, M. (1979). Perceptions of the magnitude and diversity of social support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 570–581.

Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 1–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.

Hamilton, D. L., & Trolier, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of Person and Group Perception, Lee/Albright/Malloy 205 the cognitive approach. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 127–163). New York: Academic Press.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . New York: Wiley.

Hong, Y-Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural mind. American Psychologist, 55 , 709–720.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1983). Rugged individualism reconsidered : Essays in psychological anthropology . Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.

Ichheiser, G. (1943). Why psychologists tend to overlook certain obvious facts. Philosophy of Science , 10 , 204–207.

Ichheiser, G. (1949). Sociopsychological and cultural factors in race relations. American Journal of Sociology , 54 , 395–401.

Ichheiser, G. (1970). Appearances and realities: Misunderstanding in human relations . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology . New York: Holt.

Jones, E. (1986). Interpreting interpersonal behavior: The effect of expectancies. Science, 234, 41–46.

Jones, E. E., Wood, G. C., & Quattrone, G. A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 , 523–528.

Jones, E. G., Kanouse, D., Kelley, H., Nisbett, R., Valins, S., & Weiner, D. (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior . Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection and construction model. Psychological Review , 98 , 54–73.

Jussim, L. (1993). Accuracy in interpersonal expectations: A reflection-construction analysis of current and classic research. Journal of Personality , 61 , 638–668.

Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes in one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280–290.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attributional theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Kenny, D. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review , 98 , 155–163.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis . New York: The Guilford Press.

Kenny, D. A., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 102 , 390–402.

Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the Big Five. Psychological Bulletin , 116 , 245–258.

Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin , 114 , 145–161.

Kenny, D. A., & LaVoie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Partner effects in social interaction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior , 12 , 34–57.

Kim, U., & Berry, J. W. (1993). Indigenous psychologies . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Klineberg, O. (1954). Social psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effect of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46 , 1044–1057.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin , 106 , 395–409.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lalonde, R. N., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). An intergroup perspective on stereotyping organization and processing. British Journal of Social Psychology , 28 , 289–303.

LaPiere, R. T. (1936). Type-rationalizations of group antiplay. Social Forces, 15, 232–237.

Lee, Y-T. (1993). Ingroup preference and homogeneity among African American and Chinese American students. Journal of Social Psychology , 132 , 225–235.

Lee, Y-T. (1995). A comparison of politics and personality in China and in the U.S.: Testing a “kernel of truth” hypothesis. The Journal of Contemporary China , 9 , 56–68.

Lee, Y-T. (2000). What is missing in Chinese-Western dialectical reasoning? American Psychologist, 55 , 1065–1067.

Lee, Y-T., & Duenas, G. (1995). Stereotype accuracy in multicultural business. In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 157–186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lee, Y-T., Jussim, L., & McCauley, C. (1995). Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lee, Y-T., McCauley, C., & Draguns, J. (1999). Personality and person perceptions across cultures . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lee, Y-T., & Ottati, V. (1993). Determinants of ingroup and outgroup perceptions of heterogeneity: An investigation of Sino-American stereotypes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 24 , 298–318.

Lee, Y-T., & Ottati, V. (1995). Perceived in-group homogeneity as a function of group membership salience and stereotype threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 21 , 610–619.

Levesque, M. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of behavioral predictions: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 , 1178–1187.

Lewin, M. (1992). The impact of Kurt Lewin's life on the place of social issues in his work. Journal of Social Issues , 48 , 15–29.

Leyens, J. P., Yzerbyt, V., & Schadron, G. (1994). Stereotypes, social cognition, and social explanation. London: Sage.

Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1986). Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: An application to ingroup-outgroup perception. In J. F. Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 165–208). New York: Academic.

Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Personality , 57 (2), 165–188.

Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689–703.

Lippmann, W. (1922/1965). Public opinion. New York: The Free Press.

Mackie, D., & Hamilton, D. (1993). Affect, cognition and stereotyping : Interactive processes in group perception . San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Macrae, C. N., Stangor, C., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Stereotypes and stereotyping . New York: Guilford Press.

Malloy, T. E. (1995). Integration of the methodological approaches of Brunswik, Campbell, and Cronbach in research on interpersonal perception . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Washington: DC.

Malloy, T. E., & Albright, L. (1990). Interpersonal perception in a social context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58 , 419–428.

Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., Diaz-Loving, R., Dong, Q., Kenny, D., & Lee, Y-T. (2001). Context dependent interpersonal perception . Unpublished manuscript, Rhode Island College.

Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., Agatstein, F., & Winquist, L. (1997). Interpersonal perceptions and metaperceptions in non-overlapping social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 390–398.

Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Social Relations Model: An integrative method for personality research. Journal of Personality , 54 , 199–225.

Malloy, T. E., Sugarman, D. B., Montvilo, R. K., & Ben-Zeev, T. (1995). Children's interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis of perceiver and target effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 , 418–426.

Malloy, T. E., Winquist, L., Scarpatti, S., & Albright, L. (1995). Accuracy of metaperception in middle childhood . Unpublished manuscript, Rhode Island College.

Malloy, T. E., Yarlas, A., Montvilo, R. K., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Agreement and accuracy in children's interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 , 692–702.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, C. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review , 98 , 224–253.

Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137–230). New York: Random House.

McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review , 90 , 215–238.

McCauley, C. (1995). Are stereotypes exaggerated? A sampling of racial, gender, academic, and political stereotypes. In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 215–243). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McDougall, W. (1908). Introduction to social psychology . London: Methuen.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology , 40 , 45–81.

Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A metaanalytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 10 (3), 233–252.

Myers, D. G. (1999). Social psychology (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner (Ed.), Rediscovering the social group : A self-categorization theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Oakes, P. J., & Reynolds, K. J. (1997). Asking the accuracy question: Is measurement the answer? In R. Spears, P. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. Haslem, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 51–71). Oxford UK: Blackwell.

Ostrom, T. M., & Sedikides, C. (1990) The status of theory and research on outgroup homogeneity: An analysis of cognitive approaches . Unpublished paper. Ohio State University at Columbus.

Ottati, V., & Lee, Y-T., (1995). Accuracy: A neglected component of stereotype research. In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 29–59). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Park, B., & Hastie, R. (1987). Perception of variability in category development: Instance versus abstraction-based stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53 (4), 621–635.

Paulhus, D. L., & Reynold, S. (1995). Enhancing target variance in personality impressions: Highlighting the person in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 1233–1242.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.

Pepitone, A. (1995). Nonmaterial beliefs: Theory and research in cultural social psychology . Unpublished manuscript. University of Pennsylvania.

Pepitone, A., & Triandis, H. C. (1987). On the universality of social psychological theories. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 4 , 471–496.

Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within ingroups and outgroups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141–152.

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (1991). The person and the situation : Perspectives of social psychology . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schneider, D. J., Hastorf, A. H., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1979). Person perception . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schoenfeld, N. (1942). An experimental study of some problems relating to stereotypes. Archives of Psychology, 38 (No. 270).

Schuman, H. (1966). Social change and the validity of regional stereotypes in East Pakistan. Sociometry, 29, 428–440.

Segall, M., Campbell, D. T., & Herskovits, M. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Segall, M., Dasen, P., Berry, J., & Poortinga, Y. (1999). Human behavior in global perspective (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Shaver, K. G. (1977). Principles of social psychology . Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 703–711.

Simon, B., & Mummendey, A. (1990). Perceptions of relative group size and group homogeneity: We are the majority and they are all the same. European Journal of Social Psychology , 20 , 351–356.

Simon, B., & Pettigrew, T. (1990). Social identity and perceived group homogeneity: Evidence for the ingroup homogeneity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology , 20 , 269–286.

Spears, R., Oakes, P., Ellemers, N., & Haslem, S. (1997). The social psychology of stereotyping and group life . Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Stangor, C. (1995). Content and application inaccuracy in social stereotyping. In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 275–292). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgment. British Journal of Social Psychology , 54, 101–114.

Triandis, H. (1994). Culture and social behavior . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Triandis, H. C., & Vassiliou, V. (1967). Frequency of contact and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 (3), 316–328.

Tu, W-M. (1985). Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 231–251). New York: Tavistock.

Vinacke, W. E. (1956). Exploration in the dynamic process of stereotyping. Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 105–132.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A., & Stoto, M. (1979). A new round robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37 , 1742–1757.

Weber, M. (1922/1968). Economy and society . New York: Bedmeister Press.

Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and intergroup relations. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 213–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wilder, D. A. (1984). Prediction of belief homogeneity and similarity following social categorization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 322–333.

Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1994). Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zanna, M. P., & Olson, J. M. (1994). The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 7). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Zhang, K., Lee, Y-T., Liu, Y-F., & McCauley, C. (1999). Chinese-American differences: A Chinese view. In Y-T. Lee, C. McCauley, & J. Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp. 127–138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zimbardo, P. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Ethnic Studies, Minnesota State University, 109 Morris Hall, Mankato, MN, 56001

Yueh-Ting Lee

Westfield State College, USA

Linda Albright

Rhode Island College, USA

Thomas E. Malloy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lee, YT., Albright, L. & Malloy, T.E. Social Perception and Stereotyping: An Interpersonal and Intercultural Approach. International Journal of Group Tensions 30 , 183–209 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005256425413

Download citation

Issue Date : June 2001

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005256425413

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interpersonal and intergroup perception
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Social perception and stereotyping: An interpersonal and intercultural approach

2001, International Journal of Group Tensions

Related Papers

Frontiers in Psychology

Anastassia Zabrodskaja

Social and Personality Psychology Compass

Julie Rodgers

Stereotyping is one of the largest and most enduring research areas in social and personality psychology; many of the processes by which stereotypes are formed, maintained, and applied are now well understood. Yet, little is known about the degree to which stereotyping processes apply outside of North American and Western European contexts. This theoretical paper aims to serve as a starting point for researchers interested in the intersection of culture and stereotyping. We review the nascent literature documenting similarities and differences in intergroup perception across cultural groups and note areas in which the cross-cultural and stereotyping literatures have explored common mechanisms that could be profitably integrated. Finally, we offer suggestions for future research that will greatly improve our understanding of how culturally influenced cognitive tendencies influence the perception of social groups and their members.

Julie Spencer-Rodgers

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Donovan McFarlane

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science

Peter MacIntyre

Daniel Bar-Tal

Revista de Psicología Social

Angel Alejandro Rojas Gomez

This article provides insight into the process of stereotyping from two different perspectives: the perceiver and the target. From the perceiver's perspective, motivational and cognitive reasons for relying on stereotypes for judgment are discussed. From the targets’ perspective, stereotype threat research is reviewed. From both perspectives, it is clear that stereotypes represent a dual-edged sword for both perceiver and target group members. Finally, research incorporating both perspectives provides useful interventions for prejudice reduction.

This article discusses the notion of the stereotype in relation to the concept of identity. After a brief presentation of the dominant tendencies in contemporary studies of the stereotype, it proposes a new, pragmatist definition of the concept that enables it to function as an analytical tool for texts and films of both popular and high culture. Special attention is given to the problem of change in the field of stereotype studies and to the way in which the legacy of post-structuralism can be taken into account in studies of the stereotype.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Stacey Sinclair

Journal of Personality

Qualitative Research in Psychology

Anastacia Kurylo

Jonathan Schooler

thomas getachew

Sura Al_lamy

Géraldine Coppin , Y. Xiao

Janice Olawoye

Katherine Puddifoot

Laura Bogart , Carey Ryan

Joachim Krueger

Mahzarin R. Banaji

Annual Review of Psychology

William Von Hippel

Stereotype dynamics: Language- …

Olivier Klein

nikmah suryandari

Vanessa Smith-Castro , Miguel Moya , Jorge Vala

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

Nick Hopkins

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Elizabeth C Collins , Scott Eidelman

Industrial and Organizational Psychology

lawrence houston

Social Psychology

Armando Rodríguez Pérez

Emily Riewestahl

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Mara Cadinu

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Self-Perception Theory

In everyday life, people observe other people’s actions and behaviors and make inferences about others’ attitudes based on what they observe. When people see how another person acts in a particular situation, they often attribute the behavior to the person’s traits and attitudes. For example, if you view someone in a park recycling a plastic water bottle rather than throwing it in the garbage, you might infer that the individual is concerned about the environment. Similarly, if you witness a school child scowling at her teacher, you might infer that she is upset or angry with the teacher. Interestingly, sometimes people also observe their own behavior, much as an outsider might do, and make similar inferences about their own attitudes based on their behavior. According to self-perception theory, when people are unsure of their own attitudes, one way to infer them is by looking at their behaviors. Daryl Bem proposed self-perception theory in 1967 when he argued that people sometimes analyze their own behavior in the same fashion as they would analyze someone else’s behavior.

Self-perception theory provides a similar explanation for emotion by suggesting that people infer their emotions by observing their bodies and their behaviors. In other words, people’s emotions and other feelings come from such actions as facial expressions, postures, level of arousal and behaviors. In this way, feelings are consequences of behavior rather than the other way around. People are angry because they scowl and are happy because they smile—this is the self-perception effect.

Everyone has experienced the self-perception effect. Imagine for a moment that you have had a terrible day—several things have gone wrong and you feel very irritable and grouchy. However, you have made previous plans to meet up with some friends for a small social gathering that evening. When you arrive, you smile and elicit warm, polite behavior. When others at the gathering greet you with “Hi, how’s it going?” you respond with “Fine, how are you?” It is challenging to scowl and maintain your irritability at a party with friends. So, you smile instead and—in effect—pretend to be happy. For most of us, our original feelings of irritability decrease after smiling and exhibiting “happy” behavior. Our behavior changes our attitude.

Even the way people walk can affect the way they feel. Test this with yourself. When you get up, walk back and forth across the room, shuffling with your shoulders hunched and your eyes looking down at the floor. What do you feel? Similarly, imagine sitting slouched over all day, sighing when people speak to you and talking in a really low voice. You probably feel a bit down or depressed. Now try walking across the room taking long strides, swinging your arms high, and smiling. These different behaviors can elicit a different emotional experience.

Research Support for Self-Perception Theory

Several studies have been done since the proposal of self-perception theory that support Bem’s hypothesis. As self-perception theory predicts, research has demonstrated that people who are induced to act as if they feel something, such as happiness, report actually feeling it, even when they are unaware of how their feelings arose. This effect has been demonstrated for a wide variety of feelings and with an even wider variety of behaviors.

For example, in a simple study designed to demonstrate whether facial expression influenced affective responses—a phenomenon closely related to self-perception—psychologists examined whether facial expressions influenced individuals’ emotion responses to cartoons. To manipulate facial expressions or facial activity, subjects were asked to hold a pen in their mouth in one of two ways: (1) between their teeth with their lips open to facilitate the muscles typically associated with smiling or (2) pursed between their lips because it inhibited the muscles used during smiling. (Try this to see if you can get a sense of what your facial expressions would have been if you were in the experiment.) The task for the participants was to read a series of cartoons, with the pen in their mouth, and rate them for their degree of funniness. As self-perception theory would predict, the psychologists found that those who were holding the pen in between their teeth (facilitating a smile) reported higher levels of humor based on the cartoons than did the participants who were holding the pen between their lips. The researchers concluded that the perceived funniness of the cartoons depended on producing the muscle action involved in smiling.

The self-perception effect might also carry over to later behavior. For example, imagine that ordinarily you are shy at parties but have recently decided that you want to make new friends. You have decided that at the next party, you will make an effort to be especially talkative to meet new people and it goes well. This behavior influences your attitude about social behavior and leads you to perceive a greater outgoingness in yourself. The next time you are at a party, you exhibit outgoing social behavior without nearly as much effort. Act as if you are outgoing and you might become more so.

In a study demonstrating this carryover effect, researchers looked at the impact of a community service experience on adolescent volunteers’ levels of empathy, social responsibility, and concern for others. The findings from this study suggest that community service positively influences sympathy and compassion for others, sense of concern for society at large, and a willingness to take action to help others and the community. This demonstrates that the behavior— engaging in volunteer helping experience—can create a shift toward more caring and helping attitudes and sustained action in service.

In another interesting investigation of how behaviors affect attitudes, Mark Lepper and colleagues found giving people external reasons (e.g., monetary rewards) for performing a behavior they already enjoy decreases their intrinsic motivation to do it—a phenomenon called overjustification effect. For example, in a study testing this effect, children who were initially interested in a drawing activity reported significantly lower intrinsic interest in drawing after two weeks of receiving extrinsic reward, whereas children who did not receive external reward for engaging in the activity did not report a reduction in interest after the two weeks. According to self-perception theory, people undergo overjustification effect when their actions can no longer be attributed to their intrinsic motivation but, rather, to the anticipation of an extrinsic reward. In the previous example, the principles of self-perception theory would argue that the children’s initial interest in the activity was undermined by creating a situation in which activity was an explicit means to an extrinsic goal—in other words, the extrinsic rewards turned “play” (i.e., an activity engaged in for it’s own sake) into “work” (i.e., an activity engaged in only when extrinsic incentives are present).

In the decades following Bem’s original article, a great deal of research was aimed at trying to distinguish self-perception theory from the widely accepted cognitive dissonance theory, which argues that the inconsistency presented by believing one thing and doing another generates emotional discomfort that directs behavior toward the goal of reducing the inconsistency or dissonance. However, dissonance arises when there is inconsistency or hypocrisy between attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. Thus, attitudes or beliefs in these situations are known. Years of research in this area have led to the conclusion that cognitive dissonance and self-perception theories have different applications: Self-perception theory is more applicable in situations in which people’s attitudes are initially vague, ambiguous, or weak.

Importance and Implications of Self-Perception Theory

Because self-perception theory suggests that when people’s internal awareness of their attitudes or emotions is weak or ambiguous they can view themselves in much the same way as an outside observer, it is possible to rely upon external cues or behaviors to infer people’s inner states. You may be able to relate to the following experiences: “This is my second sandwich; I guess I was hungrier than I thought,” or, “I’ve been biting my nails all day; something must be bugging me.” In both cases, attitudes or emotions are inferred from the behavior. Thus, even if people are generally self-aware, they cannot always be accurate about why they feel the way they do. The self-perception effect allows people to gather important cues from their external environment and apply them to understand what attitudes or emotions they are experiencing internally.

The self-perception effect also may have an important application when attitudes and behaviors are incongruent or when behavior change is desired. For example, therapists working with individuals with alcohol addiction have reported that the principles of self-perception theory assist in creating change. Individuals who begin to consciously observe the amount they are drinking might infer from their behavior that they are tense or anxious and then do something about it other than drinking. Similarly, behavior change might inform individuals of their internal attitudes about drinking. For example, individuals who communicate their intentions about drinking out loud may infer their attitudes about drinking from hearing themselves speak. In other words, the behavior of telling others, “I am going to cut down on my drinking” may allow individuals to infer the attitude or internal awareness that their drinking has created problems for themselves or others. In sum, researchers in psychology have applied the self-perception theory to a wide variety of attitudes and behaviors with very interesting and important implications.

References:

• Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychology Review, 74, 183-200.
• Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

Psychology of Social Perception and Communication Essay (Critical Writing)

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Firstly, we have to begin by noting the source of loss of accuracy and the social bias. Humans are social beings, and thus they have to make judgments aimed at forming new relationships, forming mates and providing the judgment of others as well as forming alliances. All these indicate that humans need to gather skills geared towards solving personal problems and that of offering judgment to others. It is observed that a greater component of human psychology consists of loosely attached effects, some that are not intuitive and those that are curious. Camerer (2003) argues that these indicate the extent to which humans may end up making invalid judgments. People often make inferences that are misplaced that dispositions cause a greater impact on the individuals’ behaviour more than it does situation. Most people make incorrect thinking is that is associated with the biases of over-confidence, that of hindsight and what is termed as a sinister attribute. Also, studies indicate that human errors are committed in three various ways. First, we have the error that does not reveal the presence of an error when reevaluated. This is where the degree by which the error has been described seems misleading, or it could be incorrect in the essence. Another source of error could be the error produced can lead to other realistic decisions on balance and could be committed when a problem is evaluated in favour of others. The other error is that that when evaluated, it reveals that a fallacy was committed in reasoning, and it unearths wrong decision making [processes. Biases could arise from the type of problems as observed humans produce more relatively correct conclusions when parented with problems involving discrete probability more than those involving numeric probabilities. Another factor that may affect the reasoning and problem solving may be the content of the problem. Humans have different reactions to figures, words and even numbers. Problems that involve numbers may produce accurate results than those that involve words. Also considered is the paradigm of the problem. This is the mechanism employed in the analysis of the stated conclusions.

Wrong paradigms may mean fallacies; either the problem solutions look realistic or wrong, and vice versa.

Let’s now take a look at the basic factors that influence our social judgment. These factors are: impression formation and attribution, impression management, positive-negative asymmetry, self-other biases, just world beliefs and, social categorization and stereotyping, intergroup behaviour, third-person effect and strategic bias in language.

We start with impression management. This is the way people or individuals contain the impressions formed of them by other people. It is observed as an objective-oriented and conscious process, an attempt to affect other people’s thinking about a person. It controls the flow of information in a social setting. Also related to this is the concept of self-perception, where an individual focuses on reflections or image perception. Impression management is normally noted as IM. Dunbar (2003) asserts that for an individual to acquire positive perceptions of other people, he must first maintain congruent perceptions which he wants to present to the public. When viewed from the public and communications focus, it focuses on the way an individual is able to develop and maintain from personal to an organizational level which in turn create a good public image. This is as saying that individuals should be presenting themselves in the same way they require others to perceive them. This can be termed as the first impression (Ohmura, 2005). This idea is that the origination or other individual’s perception about you become the reality on which they create ideas and even the preempted behaviours. The great Greek philosopher Plato spoke of impression management as a great stage of human life while Shakespeare spoke of it as: The entire world is a stage, and the men and women in it are merely players. The individual is viewed as an actor who is shaped by the people who perceive him and even the environment where these are viewed as the targeted audience. In IM, the individual is expected to offer consistent audience impressions that are in coherence with the presumed goals. It is also noted that people differ as far as response to the environment, and even the targeted audience is concerned in that some may even become irresponsive, and others have considerably measurable responses. This process of ensuring an individual is in touch with the audience is called self-monitoring, and that of confirming that the individual is conforming to the audience’s perceptions is called self f validation (Cheney, 1986).

Secondly, we analyze the concept of self-other bias. This is where people have a great urge to believe the world is just an organized, just and predictable place where humans attain all their desires. This creates a major effect on our daily operations since we must assume that the actions we take will produce predictable results or consequences. This may lead us into trying to find justice should we suspect that the actions we have undertaken may not yield the desired outputs, or we may just try to convince ourselves that there wasn’t any justice that occurred. This may lead us to make conclusive results that those who happen to benefit deserve the benefit, and those that suffer deserve the sufferings. Also, this may lead us to say that when an innocent person suffers and there seem to be no possibility of rewarding him, then the practice encouraged people to degrade the sufferer in order to cause a more fitting between his fate and his character traits. The just world feeling makes individuals have a comfortable feeling with the world and its complications, and this may downplay the pursuit of justice and the moves to create a change in the society since the persons are contented with the status quo of the societal occurrences.

Schaller (1999) tells us that the third-person effect is where the person feels that the mass media information he is exposed to has adverse impacts on others and not himself. This is called the hypothesis of perception, where the individual perceives that the other vulnerability stems from the backing given o mass media restrictions. In this case, people get compelled by themselves so as to perceive actions only after exposure to persuasion messages and the action is always taken because of anticipated reactions of other individuals (Levy,2004). The action commonly taken is normally probabilistic and may be coherent to the message or meant to give it a counter. The considered effects are those of the influence of the media and the size of the effect (Bering,2004).

Also, the messages that have unpredictable effects may cause reverse effects, or they may reduce the effects or repercussions. This idea is that of a person having the belief that they are capable of doing something other than the others-a feeling of superiority. A third person effect is a form of hypothesis of behaviour which is very significant in the censorship issues where an individual will rarely confess they have ever been seriously impacted due to the prohibited information although they have had cases of the sort instead lay emphasis on the protection of the public.

Impression formation is the fast development of the common perceptions or even the type of understanding a person gives to a specific individual based on a number of features. This may involve the models of combining data about a person. It could be those that require addiction models and those that do not involve addiction. Impression formation may adversely affect the way people offer their judgments about you. For instance, impressions created on such grounds as tribal.racial and gender grounds may offer invalid conclusions about a person character since individuals are not judged o their behaviour but on some unpredictable grounds. Individuals have been mistakenly arrested and even jailed simply because impressions created about them were used to offer incorrect information or used to match them with the wrong persons. The attribution entails the modification of behaviour by embracing the concept of learners getting encouraged by the fact that they should be able to have a pleasant feeling of themselves. Barrett (2005) says that it involves cognition in that it tries to explain that the perceptions of the learners about the current state of affairs may adversely affect their future perceptions and even their successes or failure. It puts that the chances o failure or success may be from internal or external factors where new may be successful or fail due to the factors we lay our beliefs on. This may be due to the fact that the factors exist in our environment, or they may be originating from ourselves. Another factor attributed to our success or failure may be stability. If our belief is that the outcome will be stable, then it, in turn, comes out to be stable; otherwise, they will be unstable. Successor failure may also be affected by the degree of control. A factor that is controllable if we believe in it may cause us to have an alteration to our outcomes, but the uncontrollable ones will lead to lees alterations of the outcomes. The major aspect of attribution is that individuals will always give an interpretation of their environment so as to keep a completely positive image of themselves. For instance, in the case of learners who succeed in the academic arena, the success is attributed to their own capabilities or the amount of energy they input in their academics but end up attributing the failure to autonomous factors that they bear no control over. In general, the attribution theory indicates that an individual’s motivation is linked to his own perceptions about himself or his to the quantity of effort the individual put into his activities in the future. Therefore it calls for four factors that influence an individual’s success or failure as ability, luck, task complexity and effort.

The other factor is positive-negative asymmetry. This is the impulse that is created in person perceptions about a specific personality. It causes different reactions as far as the impressions of the individuals, or the organization is concerned. First, we note that social attributes stated negatively are in the receipt of extreme responses than those that are positively stated and that personal concepts are attributed to factors as intimidation, items of deception that are all linked to impression management that, in turn, act as determinants of psychology. For instance, the negative perception will have a diverse effect so a business organization. The impression of customers about the management may affect the productivity of the transaction in that more customers may tend not to receive services from the organization. Positive –negative asymmetry also may originate from the environment where individuals [perceptions about others is majorly dictated by the same feelings he has for his environment.

An imbalance in both the factors indicates that the perceptions are flawed and may not depict the correct behaviour of individuals.

Also evident is the strategic bias in language. It could be common in a learning environment where learners are taught using words of varying phonology. The target words get specific primes. The words are altered with changing meanings and categories. In the case of learners who haven’t captured the pattern of alteration of the meanings of the words, they may end up being discriminated against linguistically. This is said o be strategic language bias since it is deliberate in cutting out others from communication. The learner’s expectancy of particular meaning is downplayed with inconsistent results.

Because of this, the approach is discriminative and may influence the extent to which an individual perceives others.

Social organization and stereotyping is also an issue as far as our social justice is concerned. This covers such aspects as a selection of the category by individuals, the application of the category and even the motivation factors. These factors have their social Implications associated with them. It may also seem that such issues as homogeneity and assimilation are attributed to socials groups. Individuals fit into their distinct groups by selection. When individuals get identified as groups and not as individuals or as members of a given category, then we are left with maybe social consequences. First, a person may have his characters generalized with those of the groups; this is in the event that they do not match. Secondly, cases of mistaken identities may arise since people tend to associate a person’s character with someone’s and lastly is the idea of misconception and incorrectly formed conclusions that the whole of the category is homogenous. Social categorization and stereotyping are natural processes in which those who perceive them mainly depend on day-to-day social events.

They are greatly associated with each other. Those who perceive them always expect that the stated categories should differ adversely in the various concepts or fields. This shows that category selection is greatly determined by the person’s stereotypes. Also, the overall application mainly affects the principles on which the goals or objectives are revolving. Thus the individual’s differences and indifferences are incorporated in the stereotype beliefs, which consequently tend to be productive determinants of the content of the stereotype.

Stereotyping may also bring out the issue of imbalanced goals since individuals just fall into social groups dictated by the degree of the formed stereotypes and not the underlying goals.

• Barrett, L., & Heinz, P. (2005). The social nature of primate cognition . Proc Biol Sci.2 nd Ed.
• Bering, J. M. (2004). A critical review of the Enculturation hypothesis: The effects of human rearing on great ape social cognition . Anim Cogn
• Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction . New York, N.Y. Princeton University Press.
• Cheney, D. (1986). Social relationships and social cognition in nonhuman primates . Science,
• Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective . Annual Review of Anthropology
• Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment . Neuron
• Humphrey, N. (2003). The Inner Eye: Social Intelligence in Evolution . Oxford University Press.
• Levy, N. (2004). Evolutionary psychology, human universals, and the standard social science model. Biology and Philosophy
• Norenzayan, A., Schaller, M., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Evolution and culture . In M.
• Schaller, J. A. (1999) Evolution and social psychology ). New York: Psychology Press.
• Ohmura, Y., & Yamagishi, T. (2005). Why do people reject unintended inequity? Responders’ rejection in a truncated ultimatum game. Psychol Rep
• Bem, D.J. (1972). Self-perception theory: In L. Berkowitz, Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press
• Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness: In L. Berkowitz, Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7) . New York Academic Press
• Gibson, E.J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development . New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts
• Gibson, J.J. (1966). The Etiological approach to visual perception . Boston Houghton Mifflin
• Pennebaker, J.W. (1992). Inhibition as the linchpin of health . Washington DC. American Psychological Association
• Mental Health Stigma From American Perspective
• The Anorexia Nervosa as a Mental Illness
• Applying Reinforcement and Attribution Theory
• Suicide and Fundamental Attribution Theory
• Prospect and Attribution Theories in Decision Making
• Final Wishes Before Death
• How Is Disease Beautified in the Modern Society Under the Guise of Beauty?
• Family Relationships of an Anorexic Person
• Social Psychology: Police Brutality
• Ted Bundy, a Serial Killer and Psychopath
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 14). Psychology of Social Perception and Communication. https://ivypanda.com/essays/psychology-of-social-perception-and-communication/

"Psychology of Social Perception and Communication." IvyPanda , 14 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/psychology-of-social-perception-and-communication/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Psychology of Social Perception and Communication'. 14 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Psychology of Social Perception and Communication." October 14, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/psychology-of-social-perception-and-communication/.

1. IvyPanda . "Psychology of Social Perception and Communication." October 14, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/psychology-of-social-perception-and-communication/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Psychology of Social Perception and Communication." October 14, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/psychology-of-social-perception-and-communication/.

Module 3: The Self

Module Overview

Human beings, by their very nature, are prone to focus on the self and to engage in behavior to protect it. Module 3 will cover some of the ways this occurs. We will start by focusing on the self-concept or who we are and self-schemas. We will also discuss self-perception theory, possible selves, the self-reference effect, self-discrepancies, how others affect our sense of self, and cultural differences of the self. Then we will tackle the issue of self-esteem and its two forms – global and domain specific. Self-esteem across the life span and gender and cross-cultural differences will be examined. We will discuss how self-esteem is affected, and protected, when mortality is made salient, self-efficacy and locus of control, self-regulation, self-awareness, and self-enhancement. Our third section will cover self-presentation and specific strategies we use such as self-promotion, ingratiation, false modesty, self-verification, and self-monitoring. Finally, we will discuss cognitive biases and heuristics used to defend the self, such as the self-serving bias, false consensus effect, false uniqueness effect, and unrealistic optimism and defensive pessimism.

Module Outline

3.1. The Self-Concept

3.2. self-esteem, 3.3. self-presentation, 3.4. cognitive biases and heuristics used to bolster the self.

Module Learning Outcomes

• Define the self-concept and clarify how we learn about the self.
• Define self-esteem and describe efforts we engage in to protect or improve it.
• Describe ways we make ourselves appear in a more positive light to others.
• Outline cognitive biases and heuristics used to defend the self.

Section Learning Objectives

• Define self-concept and clarify whether it is stable or malleable.
• Define and exemplify self-schemas.
• Describe self-perception theory and how it helps us learn about the self.
• Clarify the importance of possible selves.
• Describe the self-reference effect.
• Define self-discrepancy theory.
• Describe Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self.
• Define reflected appraisal.
• Describe the social comparison theory and how it helps us to learn about the self.
• Clarify the importance of the two-factor-theory of emotion for the self.
• Describe cultural differences in the conception of the self.

3.1.1. The Age-Old Question – Who Are You?

Quite possibly the fundamental question of human existence is who we are. If asked who you are by another person, how would you describe yourself? Are you smart, resourceful, compassionate, petty, empathetic, self-serving, or optimistic? Are you good at sports or do you write poetry well? Should any singing you do be reserved for the shower? These descriptors are what make up our self-concept or the way we see ourselves. This view is probably clear most of the time. If you are not talented at writing, you will likely avoid writing intensive classes as a student. Some classes you cannot avoid, and so in these instances you will seek out extra help so that you are successful with the class. If you are incredibly talented at football, you may go out for the team but will not likely try out for the baseball team. But are there times when you are not so sure about who you are? The answer is likely yes. Maybe you and your spouse are considering adopting. Though you consider yourself a compassionate person, you are not sure you can open your heart up to another child the same way you would to a biological child. In this case, you have no prior experience to reference to determine who you are in this situation.

3.1.1.1. Is self-concept stable or malleable? There are two contradictory views of the self. Though our self-concept is relatively stable and people resist any information that contradicts their view of themselves (Greenwald, 1980), specific social environments can cause different selves to appear (Martindale, 1980). Markus and Kunda (1986) explored this dual nature of the self-concept in a study of 40 female students at the University of Michigan who participated to earn credit in their introductory psychology class (recall our discussion in Module 2 of convenience samples and issues with generalizability as a result). The participants were run one at a time and with three female confederates who were also undergraduate students but paid for their involvement. The researchers used minimal deception and led the participants to believe the study was on attitudes and opinions. They were first shown posters in a series of three trials. The posters had three items on them, either three colors, cartoons, or greeting cards, and the participant was asked to record for each poster the number of the item she liked best (of the three). The experimenter then explained that she had to transfer the responses to a computer coding sheet and that it would make life easier if all participants (the actual participant and the three confederates) could read their responses out loud. On each trial the participant went first, followed by the confederates. Her responses determined what the confederates would say. In the uniqueness condition, on all but 3 of the 18 trials the confederates all disagreed with the participant but agreed with one another. So if the participant preferred Color A the confederates all chose C. On the other three trials, the first confederate agreed with the participant while the other two disagreed with her and with each other. In the similarity condition, on all but 3 of the trials, the confederates agreed with the participant. If she chose Color C, then so did the three confederates. On the other three trials, none of the confederates agreed with the participant and two agreed with each other (meaning if the participant chose C, one chose A and two chose B, for instance). The participant then completed a series of dependent measures to include judgments of similarity to reference groups, self-categorization judgments, and word association. There was also a manipulation check such that participants were asked what percentage of the time they thought other participants agreed with their preference judgment in the first part of the study. Debriefing then occurred.

Results showed that for the manipulation check, subjects were aware of the extent to which participants agreed with them. The uniqueness group stated that the others agreed with them just 8% of the time while the similarity subjects estimated 77% of the time. The authors note that there was actually 17% and 83% agreement, respectively. In terms of how stable self-concept is, results showed that neither group appeared to have been influenced by the information about their similarity or uniqueness. In terms of the malleability of self-concept, the differences in the latencies between the two conditions for self-categorization judgments (i.e. their reaction times), suggests that different types of self-conceptions were mediating these judgments. This was also seen in the similarity to reference groups task such that both conditions felt more similar to in-groups than out-groups. It should be noted that the effect was not as strong for the similarity condition as their mean judgment of similarity to the in-group ( M = 4.93) was not as strong as the uniqueness condition ( M = 5.13), and their judgment of out-groups was higher ( M = 2.26) than the uniqueness condition ( M = 1.82).

Markus and Kunda (1986) conclude that both the stability and malleability of the self-concept were demonstrated in their study, though if one only looked at the results of the first part of the study (the showing of the posters with the three items to choose from) “one would tend to infer that the self-conceptions of these individuals were relatively unresponsive to the self-relevant information provided by the study” (pg. 864). Further examination of the word association, latency, and similarity tasks show that “…underlying these similar general self-descriptions were very different temporary self-conceptions” (pg. 864). When individuals were led to feel unique, they became disturbed by this and following the preference manipulation viewed their uniqueness as negative while the state of similarity to others became positive and desirable. They recruited conceptions of themselves as similar to others and made these endorsements relatively quickly (as shown through shorter latencies). Those made to feel extremely similar to others responded in the exact opposite way.

Finally, they say that the self-concept is a set of self-conceptions and from it, “the individual constructs a working self-concept that integrates the core self-conceptions with those elicited by the immediate context. In this sense, the self-concept becomes similar to that suggested by the symbolic interactionists. Thus, for Mead (1934) there was no fixed self-concept, only the current self-concept that was negotiated from the available set of self-conceptions” (Markus and Kunda, 1986, pg. 865).

3.1.2. Self-Schemas

As we interact with our world, we gather information that we need to organize in a way that we can obtain it again when needed. Basically, we store it away in memory and retrieve it when we encounter the person, object, or concept at a later time. This element of cognition is called a schema and as we can have schemas concerning external objects or ideas, we too can have them about ourselves, called a self-schema. These self-schemas make up our self-concept in much the same way that the words on this page make up the module you are reading, and this module is just one of many in the textbook. Markus (1977) defined self-schemata as, “cognitive generalizations about the self, derived from past experience, that organize and guide the processing of the self-related information contained in an individual’s social experiences (pg. 64).”

Self-schemas represent a person’s domain specific attributes or abilities and experiences as they relate to that domain. This allows for quicker encoding, more confident evaluation, accurate retrieval of domain-relevant information, and the ability to adapt to different information processing goals (Carpenter, 1988; Greenwald, 1980; Markus, 1977). Individuals with a self-schema in a domain are said to be schematic while those lacking one are aschematic for that ability (Cross & Markus, 1994). According to Markus (1977), aschematic individuals are not able to recognize their ability in a given domain and do not assign their ability any critical personal importance.

They can also help to shape social perception when the description of person is ambiguous. One study showed that when a target (Chris) is described as equally likely to be independent or dependent, participants classified as independence-schematics rated Chris as more independent and dependence-schematics rated him as more dependent or less likely to act independently compared to aschematics. The authors say that self-schemas serve a motivational role such that they help to foster the self-system’s stability, validation, and perpetuation (Green & Sedikides, 2001).

3.1.2.1. Types of self-schemas. Prieto, Cole, and Tageson (1992) compared depressed, clinic-referred children; nondepressed, clinic-referred children; and nondepressed, non-clinic referred children on three cognitive measures of positive and negative self-schemas. On a word recognition measure and an incidental word recall measure, depressed individuals had a less positive self-schema compared to the other two groups. Only non-depressed groups recalled significantly more positive words than negative ones. The results suggest that such negative self-schemas affect how new information is stored and accessed. Another study found that depressive self-schemas were a result of peer victimization such that individuals who experienced relational and verbal victimization more so than physical victimization by their peers had stronger negative and weaker positive self-cognitions and an elimination of the “normative memorial bias for recall of positive self-referential words” (Cole et al., 2014).

Self-schemas have also been identified for race-ethnicity (Oyserman, 2008; Oyserman et al., 2003), body weight (Altabe & Thompson, 1996; Markus, Hamill, & Sentis, 1987), gender (Markus, Crane, Bernstein, & Siladi, 1982), exercise (Kendzierski, 1990), religion (McIntosh, 1995), and illness (Clemmey & Nicassio, 1997), to name a few. Lodge and Hamill (1986) even propose a partisan schema related to political knowledge and interest. Those described as schematics are high in interest and knowledge and show a “consistency bias” such that they recall more policy statements consistent with a congressman’s party affiliation than those inconsistent with it. They also can classify campaign statements as Republican or Democrat. Aschematics, or those low in interest and knowledge, perform at no better than chance levels in the same task. The authors note that the restructuring of memory shown by schematics, and in particular those scoring especially high on interest and knowledge which they call sophisticates, demonstrates a serious bias in how political information is processed.

3.1.2.2. Self-perception theory. One way we gain knowledge about ourselves is through observing ourselves, called introspection or looking inward. We notice food preferences, particular music genres we like, the types of clothing we prefer to wear, and the type of person we consider to be a friend. But what we gain self-knowledge about tends to be things that are not central or critical (Bem, 1972). Why is that? The things about us that are most important make up the attitudes we express, the beliefs we hold, the traits we display, and the emotions we prefer to display and so are at our core. Self-perception helps us to learn about the more secondary aspects of the self.

3.1.2.3. Possible selves. Not only are we concerned about the person we are right now, but we focus on the person we might become, which Markus and Nurius (1986) call possible selves . These could be positive conceptions of our future self, but likewise, they could be something we are afraid of becoming and could elicit guilt and anxiety in the individual (Carver et al., 1999). According to Inglehart, Markus, and Brown (1988) our possible selves allow us to focus attention on specific, task-relevant cognitions, emotions and actions, thereby allowing us to move from our current state to the desired one (Oyserman & Markus, 1990a), especially when a possible self is seen as a self-regulator (i.e. a student who spends more time on homework, improved grades, and participated in class more because they realize they are not doing well now, but could in the future if they engage in specific types of behaviors; Oyserman et al., 2004). Across two studies, Cross and Markus (1994) showed that schematic individuals were better able to direct their attention to the problem at hand and concentrate on it while aschematic individuals were quicker to endorse negative possible selves related to logical reasoning ability. Hence, self-schemas can help foster competence by “providing a foundation for the development of possible selves related to that ability” (pg. 434). They continue, “…the possible self may link effective steps and strategies for solving reasoning problems with beliefs about one’s ability and competence in the domain. Bringing to mind a positive, desired view of oneself in the future as logical and analytical may also help the student dispel anxiety or worry during the task” (pg. 435). Research has also shown that when balance between feared and expected possible selves does not exist, the outcomes can be negative such as the initiation and maintenance of delinquent activity in adolescents (Oyserman and Markus, 1990b).

3.1.2.4. The self-reference effect. Would it surprise you to learn that humans have a tendency to more efficiently process, and recall more accurately, information about ourselves? Probably not. This is called the self-reference effect (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). Craik and Lockhart (1972) proposed the depth of processing (DOP) framework which says that how well a memory trace is retained is determined by the nature of the encoding operations such that deep, meaningful analyses result in a more durable trace than shallow, structural analyses of a stimulus. Up to 1977 it was believed that better retention could be achieved by semantic encoding though Rogers, Kuiper, and Kriker (1977) showed that self-referent encoding produced even better recall. The self-reference effect has since been replicated in numerous studies (for an overview of this research, please see Symons & Johnson, 1997).

Since the self-reference effect is a property of memory, we might expect that it is affected by the aging process. Across three studies, Gutchess, et al., (2007) showed that under some circumstances, older adults can benefit from self-referencing as much as young adults can but in general, they are more limited in their application of it. The authors speculate that “older adults may be limited in their application of self-referencing due to its demand on cognitive resources and their diminished ability to apply the strategy flexibly and broadly in other types of evaluative judgments” (pg. 834).

In terms of what area of the brain might control the self-reference effect, research using lesioning has found a role for the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Patients with focal brain damage to the mPFC were given a standard trait judgment paradigm and damage to this area was found to abolish the self-reference effect, suggesting that the structure is important for self-referential processing and the neural representation of the self (Philippi et al., 2012). The implications of this research go beyond social psychology, too. The authors write, “The ability to detect and encode information for self-relevance might contribute not only to the formation of a self-concept, but also more broadly to psychological and social functioning. Across a variety of psychopathological conditions and personality disorders, self-referential processing appears to be dysfunctional, making it a major target for psychotherapy.” To read this article yourself, please visit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297026/ .

3.1.3. Self-Discrepancies

Self-discrepancy theory was postulated by Higgins (1987) to distinguish between the various self-states proposed by sociology, psychology, and even philosophy. Higgins says there are two cognitive dimensions which underlie the various self-state representations. The first is the domains of the self , numbering three total – the actual, ideal, and ought selves. The actual self includes the attributes that you are believed to possess, whether by yourself or another person. The ideal self includes all attributes that someone, whether you or another person, hope or wishes for you to possess. The ought self are the attributes that someone (yourself or another person) believes you should possess (i.e. linked to a sense of duty, obligation, or responsibility). Higgins exemplifies the ideal and ought self through the example of the conflict a hero faces between their personal wishes and their sense of duty.

The second cognitive dimension is what he calls standpoints on the self , or whose perspective on the self is involved. The two basic standpoints are your own personal standpoint and the standpoint from a significant other such as a spouse, parent, sibling, or close friend. A person can have a self-state representation for any number of these significant others.

The two cognitive dimensions can then be combined to form six basic types of self-state representations: actual/own, actual/other, ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own, and ought/other. Our self-concept is derived from the first two, while the last four are self-directive standards or acquired guides for being, or as he calls them, self-guides . Self-discrepancy theory therefore proposes that people differ as to which self-guide they are motivated to meet, and that people do not necessarily possess all four (we might have only ought or ideal self-guides). We are motivated to “reach a condition where our self-concept matches our personally relevant self-guides” (pg. 321).

If this does not happen, we can experience sadness, disappointment, fear, dissatisfaction, apprehension, or feel threatened. For instance, if a discrepancy exists between the actual/own and ideal/own states, meaning the person feels their personal hopes or wishes have not been fulfilled, they will be vulnerable to dejected-related emotions such as disappointment, frustration, and dissatisfaction. If the discrepancy is between actual/own and ideal/other, meaning they have failed to obtain a significant other’s hopes or wishes for them, they may feel shame, embarrassment, or feel downcast. If the discrepancy is between actual/own and ought/other, meaning the current state of our attributes from our standpoint does not match the state the person believes some significant other considers to be our duty or obligation to obtain, then we might experience agitation-related emotions and feel fear or threatened. Finally, an actual/own and ought/own discrepancy occurs when the current state of our attributes, from our standpoint, do not match the state we believe is our duty or obligation to obtain and so we feel self-contempt, guilt, and uneasiness (Higgins, 1987).

In sum, self-discrepancy theory helps us to understand discrepancies between our view of our self and who we would ideally like to be or believe other people think we should be.

3.1.4. How Others Affect Our Sense of Self

3.1.4.1. The looking-glass self. Sociologist Charles Cooley (1902) stated that people based their sense of self on how they think others see them. This social interaction serves as a sort of mirror in which people use the judgments of others to measure their own worth, behavior, and values. He calls this the looking-glass self , and it occurs in three steps. First, we imagine how we appear to others when in a social situation. Second, we imagine what others think of our appearance. Third, we form opinions and feelings about this perceived judgment and then respond to it. Let’s say for instance you are assigned to a small group in your social psychology class and are asked to discuss the topic of self-discrepancy theory. You have not interacted with these individuals thus far this semester, and so you want to demonstrate to these fellow students that you are knowledgeable of the concept. As you discuss the material, you take note of how your fellow classmates respond to your thoughts and applications of the concept of self-discrepancy theory. What is their body language? Do they maintain eye contact with you? Do they seem to be distracted or are they focused? What words do they use in response to your comments? If your classmates generally have positive feedback such as commenting constructively on your thoughts or listening intently, you will feel confident that they see you as competent and knowledgeable. If, on the other hand, they look away often, are playing a game on their phone, or have negative comments, you will likely feel that they do not see you as knowledgeable. To make matters more complicated, in the future your professor has you work with a different group of classmates for a different activity. The new task provides a different context for the interaction and the new set of students changes the nature of those involved. So, how you use the information obtained from this new group of individuals will likely be different than the first group. And of course, not all feedback carries the same weight. Maybe you know one of your group members is an A student and doing very well in the class. If they provide positive feedback this will mean more to you than a student praising your analysis who you know is struggling.

3.1.4.2. Reflected appraisals. Building off Cooley’s work, Felson (1985) said that we come to see ourselves as those important to us see us, called a reflected appraisal. In an interesting study of adolescents from the Netherlands, Verkuyten (1988) found that the general self-esteem of ethnic minorities was relatively high, despite the fact that they have low status, experience discrimination and prejudice, and have little power to influence policymakers. So why was their self-esteem higher than expected? As support for the reflected appraisal process, they derived their self-esteem from fellow family members who regarded them highly.

3.1.4.3. Social comparison theory. Oftentimes, we are uncertain of our abilities and so look to others for a clue. A college baseball player may compare his batting average against those of his teammates to see how well he is doing. Festinger (1954) called this the social comparison theory . We make such comparisons as a way to bring about self-improvement or to motivate us to be better. If the players’ batting average is not the lowest, but close, he may ask for additional batting practice or tips from the batting coach. We also compare ourselves to others to enhance our positive self-image. If the player learns that his batting average is better than most of his teammates, he will feel good about his hitting ability. Of course, he might also develop a superior attitude or become biased or judgmental.

How might social media affect the social comparisons we make? Social networking sites such as Facebook give the impression that others are doing better than they are which can be detrimental to how we view ourselves. In a study of 231 adults aged 18-25, Facebook use was found to lead to greater levels of negative social comparison which resulted in seeing oneself as less socially competent and less physically attractive. This effect was weaker among happier individuals (de Vries & Kuhne, 2015).  A similar study of Instagram “likes” found that exposing female undergraduates to thin-ideal images led to greater levels of body and facial dissatisfaction than average images and that greater investment in Instagram likes led to higher levels of appearance comparison and facial dissatisfaction (Tiggerman et al., 2018).

The benefit of social comparison is that it can lead to efforts to self-improve. How so? We could make a specific type of social comparison called an upward social comparison in which we compare our traits and abilities against someone who is more skilled than we are. This can lead us to engage in motivated behavior to improve, but it could also leave us feeling incompetent, shameful, or jealous (Collins, 1996).

3.1.4.4. Arousal as information about us. Stimuli are forever present in our sensory world and we have perceptions of them. These perceptions lead us to respond. For example, if you are walking down a street and hear footsteps behind you, you might perceive this as a threat if it is late at night and you thought you were alone on the street. This could lead you to walk quicker to your car or house or turnaround to confront the person behind you. What if you heard footsteps but is the middle of the day, on campus, and in between classes? You would likely perceive this as just another student going to class and have no reaction. Schachter (1964) proposed his two-factor theory of emotion which states that how we perceive our own emotions depends on two factors: 1) how much physiological arousal we experience such as rapid breathing, sweating, and/or a pounding heart, and 2) the cognitive interpretation or label we apply such as angry, scared, or happy. Others help us with the second factor such that we will examine their reactions to a given situation to help us interpret the arousal we are experiencing. Say for instance we are at a movie and out of nowhere the killer jumps out and attacks the protagonist. When this happens, we jump in our seat and scream, and notice that other moviegoers have the same reaction. We thus realize we experienced a high level of arousal and label the emotion as scared. Soon after we likely laugh at ourselves since we knew all along the event was not real but a mere fiction on the screen.

3.1.5. The Self and Culture

The self does not exist on an island but in the context of the society and culture in which it lives. As such, there is a great deal of variability in terms of what the self-concept is from culture to culture. First, culture includes all the beliefs, customs, institutions, experience, values, attitudes, art, religion, etc. of a group of people. Each culture establishes norms , or rules, for how its members should behave. For instance, Western cultures view the self as independent or individualistic , meaning that individuals reject conformity, focus on individual traits and goals, and seek personal achievement while Asian cultures are interdependent or collectivistic and identify the self in a social context, believe in blending in, focus on group goals, promote solidarity, and are against egotism.  According to Markus and Kitayma (1991) the independent construal of self is bounded, unitary, and stable; focuses on being unique, realizing internal attributes, and promoting ones’ goals; and sees the role of others as self-appraisal and linked to social comparison and reflected appraisal. In terms of the interdependent self, they say the structure is flexible; the task is to belong and fit in, occupy one’s place and promote other’s goals; and our relationships with others in specific contexts define the self. The independent is internal and private, focused on one’s abilities, thoughts, and feelings while the interdependent is external and public, and focused on statuses, roles, and relationships (Markus & Kitayma, 1991).

Research shows that East Asians, namely those from Korea, have more flexibility in their self-concept compared to Americans (Choi & Choi, 2002) and that Asian Americans, compared to European Americans, show variability across relationship contexts but stability within them (English & Serena, 2007). In another study, when trait self-perceptions across different relationships were inconsistent, relationship quality and authenticity was lower for European Americans but not East Asian Americans. When there was inconsistency within the same relationship, both ethnic groups showed negative outcomes (English & Chen, 2011).

• Describe how self-esteem is a need.
• Identify and define types of self-esteem.
• Clarify what happens to self-esteem across the life span.
• Clarify if there are gender and cross-cultural differences in self-esteem.
• Define Terror Management Theory and clarify its relevance to self-esteem.
• Describe self-efficacy and locus of control and how they relate to the self.
• Define self-regulation.
• Define self-awareness and describe issues related to it.
• Differentiate public and private self-consciousness.
• Define self-enhancement and describe strategies used in it.

3.2.1. Self-Esteem Defined and Described

3.2.1.1. Self-esteem as a need. Psychologist Abraham Maslow described a hierarchy of needs as one way to understand motivation and specifically the push of motivated behavior (contrasted with the pull that comes from outside us). According to Maslow, there are five types of needs arranged in a hierarchy, or more so in a pyramid formation. Lower level needs must be fulfilled before higher level ones can be. At the bottom are the physiological needs which are what we need to survive. They include food, water, sex, temperature, oxygen, etc. At the next level are needs centered on our safety and security , or living in a safe environment, being safe from Mother Nature, and having enough money to pay the bills. With this level satisfied, we can next focus on feeling socially connected to others and being in mature relationships, which he called the love and belonginess needs . Fourth are our self-esteem needs or being independent, gaining mastery, how we feel about ourselves, and being responsible. At the pinnacle of the pyramid are our self-actualization needs , which Carl Rogers and other humanistic psychologists discussed. This level focuses on realizing our full potential, feeling fulfilled and satisfied, and seeking personal growth. We also pursue interests out of intrinsic interest and not extrinsic demands. For our purposes, Maslow’s fourth level will be focused on and self-esteem can be defined as how we see ourselves, including both positive and negative evaluative components.

3.2.1.2. Types of self-esteem. Is self-esteem a unitary concept though? Rosenberg (1979) proposed a global self-esteem and subsequent research has supported domain specific self-esteem such as for academic matters (Rosenberg et al., 1995). So, which causes which? Does global self-esteem lead to specific or vice versa? The authors propose that global could be the result of specific self-esteem since it is “based on the judgments of various parts of the self, the parts (specifics) might be seen as responsible for the whole (global)” (pg. 148). In terms of the specific arising from global, they say, “assessments of particular facets of the self may well be based on one’s overall feelings of self-worth” (pg. 148). They conclude that global and specific self-esteem are in fact neither equivalent nor interchangeable, global appears to be heavily affective in nature and associated with psychological well-being while specific is more judgmental and evaluative arising from a cognitive component; specific facets of the self vary in their level of abstraction and some types such as academic self-esteem affect global self-esteem more than other types; the degree to which we value our behavior affects how much specific self-esteem affects global; and finally, in the case of school performance it is affected by self-esteem but in terms of the specific type and not global (Rosenberg et al., 1995).

What are some of the specific types of self-esteem.? According to Gentile et al. (2009) they might include:

• Physical appearance – what we look like
• Athletics – how good we are in sports
• Academics – our general performance in school
• Social Acceptance – our friendships, peer relationships, and social approval
• Family – Our family can serve as a source support and help affirm our beliefs about our own self-worth
• Behavioral conduct – includes our perception of how socially unacceptable our behavior is
• Affect – Feeling happy, satisfied, and free from anxiety which lead to better emotional well-being
• Personal self – Our evaluation of our personality independent from the physical body or others
• Self-satisfaction – Our measure of happiness with oneself as a person
• Moral-ethical self-concept – Our perception of moral-ethical attributes and how satisfied we are with our religion or lack of one

3.2.1.3. Self-esteem across the life span. Our next question centers on whether self-esteem can change throughout our life. Trzesniewski et al., (2003) tested this very question across two studies and found that, “stability is relatively low during early childhood, increases through adolescence and young adulthood, and then declines during midlife and old age” (pg. 215). This effect held across gender, nationality, and ethnicity. How can we account for these trends? First, self-esteem was least stable during childhood, though the authors question whether self-esteem measures are valid for young children as they may not fully understand the meaning of questions on such scales or cannot form abstract concepts of themselves, such as being good or bad. Second, self-esteem is lower in early adolescence and increases after this likely due to the turmoil puberty brings about in terms of rapid maturational changes. By late adolescence and early adulthood, the individual has the resources and autonomy necessary to deal with these changes. Finally, self-esteem stability decreases from midlife to old age likely because in midlife there are few environmental changes but as we transition into late adulthood, there are a great deal of life changes and shifting social circumstances such as children moving out, retirement, health problems and the death of loved ones. In regard to late adulthood, they add, “Another possibility is that as individuals age they may begin to review their lifelong accomplishments and experiences, leading in some cases to more critical self-appraisals and in other cases to greater acceptance of their faults and limitations” (pg. 216).

Interestingly, data from 187 newlywed couples shows that the birth of the first child does affect self-esteem over the first five years of marriage. Changes mostly affect the mother and are negative in nature with a sudden decline in self-esteem the first year after the child’s birth and a gradual decline continuing over the next four years. The study utilized a control group of parents who had no child during the same period and for which there was no change in self-esteem. This suggests that the change in self-esteem of the parents with a child was likely due to the birth of their first child (Bleidorn et al., 2016).

3.2.1.4. Gender and cross-cultural differences in self-esteem. Gentile et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies and assessed the 10 different domains of self-esteem mentioned at the end of the previous section. They found that gender differences vary greatly across the different domains of self-esteem. In some cases, there was no difference at all (i.e. academic, social acceptance, family, and affect), while other domains showed a moderate amount of variation (i.e. males higher on physical appearance, athletics, personal, and self-satisfaction; females higher on behavioral conduct and moral-ethical).

But are there cross-cultural differences in gender and self-esteem? Bleidorn et al. (2016) tackled the issue in an Internet sample of 985,937 individuals from 48 nations and found that self-esteem increased from late adolescence to middle adulthood, there were significant gender gaps, and that males consistently report higher self-esteem than females. These findings are important as they show that the trends, which are consistent with the literature but previous studies only examined Western samples, are in fact cross-culturally valid and suggest universal mechanisms at least in part. These mechanisms might include biological sources including genetics or hormones or universal sociocultural factors such as socially learned gender roles and stereotypes.

Despite these cross-cultural similarities, there was a difference across nations in terms of the magnitude of gender-specific trajectories, suggesting that universal explanations may not be at work but culture-specific influences such as a nation’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita, mean age at marriage, and HDI (Human Development Index; measures of living a long life, being educated, and having a decent standard of living) are responsible. Their data suggests that wealthy, developed, egalitarian, and individualistic nations had relatively large gender differences in self-esteem, though they decrease throughout early and middle adulthood. In contrast, collectivistic, poorer, developing nations marked by greater gender inequality and an earlier age at marriage show smaller gender gaps, though these increase during early and middle adulthood.

Bleidorn et. al. (2016) conclude that universal influences on self-esteem do not tell the whole story, and that “systematic cultural differences in the magnitude and shape of gender and age differences in self-esteem provide evidence for contextual influences on the self-esteem development in men and women” (pg. 408).

3.2.2. Terror Management Theory (TMT)

3.2.2.1. What is TMT? Ernest Becker (1962, 1973, & 1975) stated that it is the human capacity for intelligence, to be able to make decisions, think creatively, and infer cause and effect, that leads us to an awareness that we will someday die. This awareness manifests itself as terror and any cultural worldviews that are created need to provide ways to deal with this terror, create concepts and structures to understand our world, answer cosmological questions, and give us a sense of meaning in the world.

Based on this notion, Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Solomon, 1986) posits that worldviews serve as a buffer against the anxiety we experience from knowing we will die someday. This cultural anxiety buffer has two main parts. First, we must have faith in our worldviews and be willing to defend them. Second, we derive self-esteem from living up to these worldviews and behaving in culturally approved ways. So, culture supports a belief in a just world and meeting the standards of value of the culture provides us with immortality in one of two ways. Literal immortality is arrived at via religious concepts such as the soul and the afterlife. Symbolic immortality is provided by linking our identity to something higher such as the nation or corporation and by leaving something behind such as children or cultural valued products. It has also been linked to the appeal of fame (Greenberg, Kosloff, Solomon, Cohen, and Landau, 2010).

Finally, based on whether death thoughts are in focal attention or are unconscious, we employ either proximal or distal defenses. Proximal defenses involve the suppression of death-related thoughts, a denial of one’s vulnerability, or participating in behavior that will reduce the threat of demise (i.e. exercise) and occur when thought of death is in focal attention. On the other hand, distal defenses are called upon when death thoughts are unconscious and involve strivings for self-esteem and faith in one’s worldview and assuage these unconscious mortality concerns through the symbolic protection a sense of meaning offers.

3.2.2.2. The typical mortality salience study. In a typical mortality salience (MS) study, participants are told they are to take part in an investigation of the relationship between personality traits and interpersonal judgments. They complete a few standardized personality assessments which are actually filler items to sustain the cover story. Embedded in the personality assessments is a projective personality test which consists of two open ended questions which vary based on which condition the participant is in. Participants in the MS condition are asked to write about what they think will happen to them when they die and the emotions that the thought of their own death arouses in them. Individuals in the control condition are asked to write about concerns such as eating a meal, watching television, experiencing dental pain, or taking an exam. Next, they complete a self-report measure of affect, typically the PANAS (Positive-Affect, Negative-Affect Scale), to determine the effect of MS manipulation on their mood. Finally, they are asked to make judgments about individuals who either directly or indirectly threaten or bolster their cultural worldviews.

3.2.2.3. Worldview defense. General findings on TMT have shown that when mortality is made salient, we generally display unfavorable attitudes toward those who threaten our worldview and celebrate those who uphold our view. This effect has been demonstrated in relation to anxious individuals even when part of one’s in-group (Martens, Greenberg, Schimel, Kosloff, and Weise, 2010) such that mortality reminders led participants to react more negatively toward an anxious police liaison from their community (Study 1) or to a fellow university student who was anxious (Study 2). Mortality salience has also been found to elevate preference for political candidates who are charismatic and espouse the same values associated with the participant’s political worldview, whether conservative or liberal (Kosloff, Greenberg, Weise, and Solomon, 2010).

Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, and Lyon (1989) examined reactions of participants to those who violated or upheld cultural worldviews across a series of six experiments. In general, they hypothesized that when people are reminded of their own mortality, they are motivated to maintain their cultural anxiety buffer and are punitive toward those who violate it and benevolent to those who uphold it. Experiments 1 and 3 provided support for the hypothesis that subjects induced to think about their own mortality increased their desire to punish the moral transgressor (i.e. to recommend higher bonds for an accused prostitute) while rewarding the hero (Experiment 3). Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1 and extended them by showing that increasing MS does not lead subjects to derogate just any target as it had no effect on evaluations of the experimenter. Also, MS increased punishment of the transgressor only among subjects who believed the target’s behavior was truly immoral.

Experiments 4 – 6 tested alternative explanations for the findings. First, self-awareness could lead individuals to behave in a manner consistent with their attitudes and standards.  The results of Study 4 showed that unlike MS, self-awareness does not encourage harsher bond recommendations and in fact, heightened self-awareness reduces how harshly a prostitute is treated among individuals with positive attitudes toward prostitution. In Study 5, physiological arousal was monitored and MS was found not to arise from mere heightened arousal. Finally, Experiment 6 showed that particular features of the open-ended death questionnaire did not lead to the findings of Studies 1-5, but rather to requiring subjects to think about their own deaths.

McGregor, Lieberman, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, Simon, and Pyszcznski (1998) tested the hypothesis that MS increases aggression against those who threaten one’s worldview by measuring the amount of hot sauce allocated to the author of a derogatory essay. In the study, politically conservative and liberal participants were asked to think about their own death (MS) or their next important exam (control). They were then asked to read an essay that was derogatory toward either conservatives or liberals. Finally, participants allocated a quantity of very spicy hot sauce to the author of the essay, knowing that the author did not like spicy foods and would have to consume the entire sample of hot sauce. As expected, MS participants allocated significantly more hot sauce to the author of the worldview-threatening essay than did control participants.

In a second study, participants thought about their own mortality or dental pain and were given an opportunity to aggress against someone who threatened their worldview. Half of the MS participants allocated the hot sauce before evaluating the target while the other half evaluated the target before allocating the hot sauce. Results of Study 2 showed that MS participants allocated significantly more hot sauce when they were not able to verbally derogate the targets prior to the administration of hot sauce. However, when MS participants were able to first express their attitudes toward the target, the amount of hot sauce allocated was not significantly greater than for the controls. This finding suggests that people will choose the first mode of worldview defense provided to them.

3.2.2.4. Self-esteem. According to the anxiety buffer hypothesis, if a psychological structure provides protection against anxiety, then strengthening that structure should make an individual less prone to displays of anxiety or anxiety related behavior in response to threats while weakening that structure should make a person more prone to exhibit anxiety or anxiety related behavior in response to threats. In support of this, Greenberg et al. (1992) showed that by increasing self-esteem, self-reported anxiety in response to death images and physiological arousal in response to the threat of pain could be reduced. Furthermore, the authors found no evidence that this effect was mediated by positive affect. Additional support for the function of self-esteem in reducing anxiety was provided by Harmon-Jones, Simon, Greenberg, Pyszcynski, Solomon, and McGregor (1997) who showed that individuals with high self-esteem, whether induced experimentally (Experiment 1) or dispositionally (Experiment 2), did not respond to MS with increased worldview defense and that this occurred due to the suppression of death constructs (Experiment 3).

3.2.3. Self-Efficacy and Locus of Control

Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1986) is our sense of competence and feeling like we can deal with life’s problems. It includes our beliefs about our ability to complete a task and affects how we think, feel, and motivate ourselves. When our self-efficacy is high, we feel like we can cope with life events and overcome obstacles. Difficult tasks are seen as challenges and we set challenging goals. In contrast, if it is low, we feel hopeless, helpless, and that we cannot handle what life throws at us. We avoid difficult tasks and throw in the towel quickly when things get tough. These individuals are easily depressed and stressed.

Our sense of competence is affected by the degree to which we blame internal or external forces for our success and failures. Using Julian Rotter’s (1973) concept of locus of control, we have an internal locus of control if we believe we are in control of our own destiny, but if we believe outside forces determine our life, we have an external locus of control.

So how do self-efficacy and locus of control intersect with one another. A study of students from a mid-sized public university in the northeastern area of the United States showed that students with an external locus of control and who are low in academic self-efficacy should be identified as they enter college and interventions directed at them to help them perform better in their classes (Drago, Rheinheimer, & Detweiler, 2018). A study of 147 women with type 1 diabetes examined the relationship between self-efficacy, locus of control, and what their expectations were of preconception counseling (Grady & Geller, 2016). Using the Diabetes-Specific Locus of Control (DLC) measure which assesses beliefs about internal, chance, and powerful others loci of control in terms of how diabetes is managed (the measure has 5 subscales: internal-autonomy, internal-blame, chance, powerful other – health professionals, and powerful other – nonmedical), a measure to assess preconception planning, and sociodemographic data,  the researchers tested the hypothesis that expectations of preconception counseling would be associated with beliefs about disease control and self-efficacy. The results showed that self-efficacy for planning a healthy pregnancy predicted outcome expectations of preconception counseling. The authors write, “…women’s self-efficacy was positively associated with their perceived usefulness of preconception counseling and birth control use, whereas self-blame about disease management negatively correlated with these views” (pg. 41). The authors suggest that efforts should be taken to improve self-efficacy and empower women with diabetes to confidently control their disease” (Grady & Geller, 2016).

3.2.4. Self-Regulation

We cannot always act or say what we feel. At times, we have to practice what social psychologists call self-regulation or controlling and directing our thoughts, feelings, and actions so that we can achieve a societal or personal goal. The good news is that much of our self-regulation occurs outside of conscious awareness but if we are trying to engage in meaningful behavioral change, we might have to focus much of our energy into self-control. One study linked successful self-regulation to executive functions to include updating, inhibiting, and shifting, which results in the ability to take goal-direction action such as losing weight (Dohle, Diel, & Hofmann, 2018).

Do concerted efforts at self-regulation reduce the amount of energy available for such activities in subsequent tasks? The question implies that self-regulation is a limited resource. Baumeister, Bratslasky, Muraven, and Tice (1998) tested this over four experiments and described this temporary reduction in the self’s ability to engage in volitional action caused by engaging in a volitional act previously ego depletion . The researchers first attempted to show that exerting self-control in terms of resisting temptation (Experiment 1) or a preliminary act of choice and responsibility (Experiment 2) would reduce the person’s ability to self-regulate on a subsequent, frustrating and difficult task. Results showed that people asked to resist eating chocolates and to make themselves eat radishes instead gave up much faster when next asked to complete a difficult puzzle than those who could indulge and eat the chocolate. Likewise, people who freely and deliberately consented to make a counterattitudinal or proattitudindal speech gave up quickly when asked to do the puzzle while those who expected to make the counterattitudinal speech under low-choice conditions showed no reduction in self-control. They state that it was the act of responsible choice, and not the behavior itself, that depleted the self and reduced persistence on the subsequent task. Experiments 3 and 4 further confirmed the finding that an initial act of volition leads to ego depletion in subsequent tasks. The good news is that this resource is replenished with time and specific factors could hasten or delay this replenishment (Baumeister et al., 1998).

3.2.5. Self-Awareness

Duval and Wicklund (1972) proposed that our self-regulation can either be directed inward and toward the self or directed outward and toward the environment. We are usually focused outward, but there are times when our attention is turned inward. For instance, if you walk by a mirror you might stop to see how you look in your new jeans. If we see a video of ourselves, are asked to talk about ourselves in an interview, or are required to give a presentation in our social psychology class, we experience an increased level of self-awareness and compare ourselves against a high standard which leads to reduced self-esteem since we realize we do not meet the standard. We then engage in motivated behavior to meet the standard, reassess whether we have, and then continue making adjustments until we finally meet the standard or give up and turn away from the self (Carver & Scheier, 1981). As you might expect, the process is aversive and so we want to resolve it (Flory et al., 2000). If we do not, we could experience depression (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987), engage in binge eating (Heatherton & Baumeister), and engage in counternormative behavior such as cheating (Diener & Wallbom, 1976) to name a few of the negative effects. Two recent studies found that when male participants were exposed to an intervention designed to focus their attention onto inhibitory, self-awareness cues, they engaged in significantly less alcohol-related physical aggression behaviors toward a female confederate compared to controls (Gallagher & Parrott, 2016) but for men with an internal and not an external locus of control (Purvis, Gallagher, & Parrott, 2016).

It is possible that some individuals are more self-focused than others, a distinction referred to as public vs. private self-consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). Public self-consciousness refers to an individual who focuses on themselves as a social object and is concerned by how they appear to others. In contrast, private self-consciousness refers to an individual who focuses on the internal self, is introspective, and attends to one’s thoughts, feelings, and motives. Scheier, Buss, and Buss (1978) found that for those high in private self-consciousness, the correlation between aggressive behavior and self-report of aggressiveness was significantly higher than for those low in private self-consciousness or high or low public self-consciousness. Public self-consciousness has also been found to relate to social aspects of identity while private self-consciousness was related to personal aspects (Cheek & Briggs, 1982).

3.2.6. Self-Enhancement

Self-enhancement is a fundamental component of human nature and involves our tendency to see ourselves in a positive light. This often occurs after our self-esteem has been negatively affected in some way (Beauregard & Dunning, 1998).

According to Sedikides & Gregg (2008), self-enhancement can be done in one of several ways. First, we might self-advance or self-protect either by augmenting positivity or reducing the negativity of the self-concept. Second, self-enhancement can occur either publicly or privately whereby in the case of the former we engage in favorable self-presentation and the latter is an internal affair. Third, we tend to self-enhance in domains that matter most to us. Finally, self-enhancement is either candid or tactical, meaning “one can both seize an opportunity for overt and immediate self-advancement, or one can forgo it in favor of other activities liable to facilitate delayed self-enhancement” (pg. 104).

People can also engage in positive illusions (Taylor & Brown, 1988) in which they hold opinions of themselves that are exaggerated or falsely positive regarding abilities and skills. These positive illusions include inflating their perceptions of themselves (i.e. self-aggrandizement), believing they have more control over events than they do (i.e. exaggerated perceptions of control), and being overly optimistic about their future (i.e. unrealistic optimism). Positive illusions have been shown to lead to successful adjustment to stressful events (Taylor & Armor, 1996); increased satisfaction in close relationships when an individual idealized their partner and is in turn idealized by them (Barelds & Dijkstra, 2011; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996); and better outcomes for physical health later in life in terms of more satisfaction with leisure time, higher self-esteem, better perceived health, and less boredom proneness when retirees hold an exaggerated youthful bias (Gana, Alaphillippe, & Bailly, 2002). Positive illusions have been reported in parenting as well in which parents have a tendency to rate their own children as possessing more positive and less negative attributes than other children (Wenger & Fowers, 2008).

Have you ever worried about doing well on a test and so create an excuse to cover poor performance such as saying you were sick when you took it? If so, you engaged in behavioral self-handicapping (Jones & Berglas, 1978). We self-handicap when we are uncertain about our abilities and anticipate a threat to our self-esteem. Instead of saying we failed the exam because our ability was low or we did not study, we instead blame it on being sick or not sleeping well the night before. Self-handicapping can take two forms – behavioral and claimed. Behavioral self-handicapping occurs when we actively acquire an impediment such as drug or alcohol abuse (Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985) or do not have enough time to practice (Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985). Claimed self-handicapping occurs when a person only reports obstacles to their success such as suffering from test anxiety (Smith, Snyder, and Handelsman, 1982) or being in a bad mood (Baumgarder, Lake, and Arkin, 1985). Between the two, behavioral handicaps are more convincingly tied to performance and so more credible, while claimed handicaps serve as an excuse for failure but do not necessarily decrease the person’s chance of success (Zuckerman & Tsai, 2005). Finally, Stewart & Walker (2014) found that self-handicapping was predicted by perfectionism and an external locus of control in a study of 79 university students (they also found that perfectionism predicted low self-efficacy).

We might even engage in the social comparison process to feel better about ourselves. How so? Instead of comparing our performance to others to see where we rate, we will look for someone we know performs worse than we do or is worse off than we are, and then make a downward social comparison (Wills, 1981). This makes us feel better about ourselves because no matter how bad off we are at the time, that person is in a far worse predicament. Maybe we know we are in a batting slump over the past 10 games and have experienced a reduction in our self-esteem as a result. We might compare ourselves against another teammate who has underperformed all year and realize that our situation is temporary and not seemingly permanent like theirs.

People have a tendency to evaluate themselves much higher than they evaluate others. For instance, they are smarter, better looking, more capable, and more honest than other people. This is called the “better than average” ( BTA) effect. Across five studies, Brown (2012) showed that the BTA is stronger for important attributes than ones that do not matter and when participants experienced a threat to their feelings of self-worth. It has also been shown that the effect holds for easy tasks which produce underconfidence, but not for difficult ones which lead to overconfidence and making a worse-than-average bias (Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007). Finally, Kanten and Teigen (2008) asked 385 students to rate themselves or an acquaintance relative to their peers on several personality traits. The results showed that participants saw themselves as superior to most others at all points in time. The authors describe a better than average improvement effect such that participants said they were more superior now compared to the past and expected to be even more superior in the future.

Finally, Cialdini et al. (1976) said that people have a tendency to publicly announce their associations with successful others in a process they called “ bask in reflected glory ” (BIRG). In a series of three field experiments involving 300 university students across seven universities in the United States, Cialdini et al. (1976) found that participants strived to bask in the glory of successful others even though they were not the cause of their  success, such as wearing school apparel and saying ‘we’ after their team was victorious but not when they lost (in the case of a loss, participants often said ‘they lost’ instead of ‘we lost’).  In another study, two days before the 1999 general election in Flanders researchers counted and recorded houses displaying at least one poster or one removable lawn sign supporting a political party (a total of 462 addresses for posters and 177 addresses for lawn signs). The day after the elections, the houses were checked to see if the poster or lawn sign (s) was/were still present. The results showed that the better the election result, the more houses that still displayed the sign/poster. Winners flaunted their association with the winning party, supporting BIRG while supporters of the losing party tried to conceal their association (Boen et al., 2002).

• Define self-presentation.
• Define self-promotion and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define ingratiation and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define false modesty and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define self-verification and describe how it is used in self-presentation.
• Define self-monitoring and describe how it is used in self-presentation.

3.3.1. Self-Presentation Defined

Think about the last date you went on, especially a first date. What did you do beforehand? You likely showered and groomed yourself, maybe even rehearsed what you would say in the mirror. You also likely took great care to pick your clothes out to make a good first impression. Any strategies we use to make ourselves appear in a more positive light to others is called self-presentation. We intentionally try to control or shape their impressions of us (Schlenker, 2012). First impressions are especially important. Oftentimes, if we make a bad first impression it can be virtually impossible to overcome even if subsequent interactions are much more positive.

3.3.2. Specific Strategies Used in Self-Presentation

So that we can successfully shape the view others have of us to be positive, we need to engage in effortful behavior. How so? One strategy is to use self-promotion or engaging in behaviors or saying positive things about oneself. We often engage in this type of behavior on a first date or in an interview. Research has also shown that individuals higher in narcissism and lower in self-esteem engage in greater levels of online activity on social networking sites such as Facebook and use more self-promotional content to include About Me, Main Photo, View Photos, and status updates. The study also found gender differences insofar as males engaged in more self-promotion in the About Me and Notes sections while females displayed more self-promotional main photos (Mehdizadeh, 2010).

Another strategy is called ingratiation or complimenting, flattering, or engaging in other acts that lead a person to do things for you or like you. This is a typical strategy used by salespeople to have you engage in one clear behavior – buy a car or other product. Politicians are known to use the strategy also so that you come to like them while they are campaigning and then subsequently vote for them on election day. Cialdini (2007) writes in his book Influence: The Power of Persuasion , “Apparently we have such an automatically positive reaction to compliments that we can fall victim to someone who uses them in an obvious attempt to win our favor” (pg. 176).

Maybe you have been on a team at work before and had an idea that completely revolutionized the way your company completed a service for its clients. Did you gloat about your performance? Not likely. You were more likely to downplay your performance and talk about the contributions of your fellow teammates instead. The end result is that you will be seen as likeable and competent by others but for what is called false modesty , you must have been successful in your performance and others must know about it already (i.e. a fan was watching the big game and saw the wide receiver catch the game winning touchdown).

Another strategy is to choose situations or interpret behavior in ways that confirm already held beliefs or to avoid situations and criticism that might contradict these beliefs. Essentially, we want to confirm our existing self-concept but from the eyes of others. This behavior can best be described as self-verification .

Finally, we engage in self-monitoring or observing our own behavior so that we can make adjustments to produce the impression we desire in others and to meet the demands of the situation (Snyder, 1987). For instance, a literature review of self-monitoring through paper diaries, the internet, personal digital assistants, and digital scales in relation to weight loss, found that more frequent self-monitoring of diet, physical activity, or weight led to more successful outcomes for weight management (Burke, Wang, & Sevick, 2011).

• Define the self-serving bias.
• Describe how social desirability is a form of the self-serving bias.
• Contrast the false consensus and false uniqueness effects.
• Outline the benefits, and perils, of optimism and pessimism.

Our final section covers cognitive biases and heuristics used to increase our sense of self, though we have discussed others already throughout this module.

3.4.1. The Self-Serving Bias

First, the self-serving bias is our tendency to see ourselves in a favorable light. We take credit for our successes but blame failures on outside forces. This bias is often displayed by students who are quicker to explain a bad grade on a test as the instructor creating a test that was too difficult or testing on information not in the study guide. When the student does well, though, it is due to their skill and time spent studying, and not necessarily to the test being extra easy.

We even have a tendency to see ourselves as less likely to exhibit a self-serving bias than others (Friedrich, 1996; Myers, 1990). Friedrich (1996) documented this effect across two studies. First, 47 upper level undergraduates enrolled in either a statistics or industrial/organizational psychology course completed an anonymous survey at the beginning of class having them read a paragraph about the results of a SAT survey and then respond to a paragraph describing the self-serving bias. At the end they were asked, “How often do you think (you; the average person) make this kind of mistake when judging or evaluating (yourself; him- or herself)?” and indicated their answer on a 9-point scale (1 meaning almost never and 9 indicating nearly all the time). The results showed that students generally saw themselves as significantly less likely to distort their self-perceptions. In the second study, 38 introductory psychology students were lectured on research related to the self-serving bias during the last third of a regularly scheduled class. At the beginning of the next class they were given a questionnaire asking them to what degree they thought that they or the average person (depending on the condition they were in) would make the mistake. The same 9-point scale was used. Results of the second study were consistent with the first such that students believed others are more likely to commit the self-serving bias than they are.

Another way we see the self-serving bias play out in research is through the social desirability effect or when participants only provide information that appears to be what is expected by society or is desirable. If asked questions about sexual activity, some may report lower levels of activity than is true or not mention acts of sexual impropriety. Though our society has become sexually charged, there are still limits to what is acceptable. We will talk more about self-serving behavior when we discuss attribution theory in Module 4.

3.4.1.1. Explaining self-serving bias. So, what are potential causes of the self-serving bias? In a 2008 article, Shepperd, Malone, and Sweeny cite a few different classes of explanations. First, the previously discussed self-enhancement and self-presentation are offered as motivation-driven reasons (please see the previous sections for a discussion).

Second, they offer cognitive-driven explanations. The outcomes might be inconsistent with expectations such that our expectations are grounded in experience and we utilize cognitive mechanisms that might mute, dampen, or even erase previous negative experiences but not positive ones. Our outcomes may also not be consistent with our self-schema meaning that our views of our skills and abilities are often overly positive and that we view ourselves as the kind of person who produces positive outcomes, not negative ones. Positive outcomes are consistent with our self-schema while negative outcomes lead to two possible conclusions: the negative outcome had an internal cause and our positive self-schema is not correct, or the negative outcome had an external cause and our positive self-schema remains intact. A third possibility is that outcomes are inconsistent with actions . Positive expectations usually lead to goal-directed behavior. The authors offer the example of a boy who prepares to ask a girl out on a date by rehearsing what he will say, dressing nice, and acting charming. If she accepts his offer, he will see it as due to his efforts but if she rejects him, he will likely regroup and try again a few times. If the answer continues to be ‘no’ then he will believe the cause is not with him but something external.

A fourth cognitive explanation is called biased hypothesis-testing . When failure occurs in place of expected success, we are likely to ask ‘why did this happen?’ Like scientist’s, people form hypotheses to answer the question and then collect data to test it. But they are often not good scientists and engage in confirmation bias and see only information that confirms rather than disconfirms their hypothesis. People also find case-positive information more diagnostic than case-negative. Finally, people engage in different standards of proof in which they form a proposition or hypothesis and proceed to evaluate evidence. Unlike biased hypothesis-testing though, they consider all information and do not omit disconfirming evidence. How much information is needed to accept or reject their hypothesis also varies insofar as they require more information to accept an undesired hypothesis and less for a desired hypothesis.  For instance, the specific hypothesis tested (i.e. ‘Am I smart?’ or ‘Am I stupid?’) determines what information is sought out in biased hypothesis testing while in different standards of proof the exact hypothesis determines how much information is required to draw a conclusion (more proof for the question centered on whether they are stupid and less for if they are smart).

Shepperd, Malone, and Sweeny (2008) conclude that the self-serving bias can only be understood using both motivational and cognitive driven explanations.

3.4.2. Overestimating Our Opinions and Skills

People often overestimate to what degree their opinion is shared by others. This tendency is called the false consensus effect (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). It may occur because people are biased in viewing their own positions as what everyone else subscribes to as well, or because they overgeneralize from case information with their opinion serving as one salient type of case information (Alicke & Largo, 1995). The false consensus effect has been demonstrated in regard to smoking behavior (thinking that half or more than half of adults or peers smoked led to the most smoking involvement; Botvin et al., 1992); drug use (Wolfson, 2000); engaging in health protective or defeating behaviors (Suls, Wan, & Sanders, 1988); a willingness to escalate a disturbance (Russell & Arms, 1995); presidential preferences such that supporters of a candidate predicted a higher percentage of support for the candidate than other candidates (Brown, 1982); determining the extent to which other voters would vote like you (Koestner et al., 1995); and illicit drug use by elite athletes (Dunn, Thomas, Swift, & Burns, 2011).

Likewise, we tend to underestimate to what degree others share our abilities and skills. This tendency is called the false uniqueness effect . We might see our math ability as rare, our future to be brighter, or our opinion of a social matter to be more desirable. One study found that participants believed their first name to be unique, whether it was rare or common. The effect held for both male and female names and the researchers also found that when we consider making a name change, rare names are often considered (Kulig, 2013).

3.4.3. Optimism…to the Extreme

Of course, seeing the jar as half full and not half empty has obvious benefits for mental health. This is the essence of the difference between being optimistic and pessimistic.  Scheier and Carver (1985) offered a theory of dispositional optimism which defines it as, “a stable individual difference that reflects the general perception that future positive outcomes will be common and future negative outcomes will be rare” (Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman, 2012). Research has shown that being optimistic results in higher levels of subjective well-being for college students (Gallagher & Lopez, 2009) and adults (Isaacowitz, 2005), leads to more adaptive coping mechanisms (Carver et al., 2009; Nes & Segerstrom, 2006), can bring about greater success on the job (Seligman & Schulman, 1986), results in goal attainment (Segerstrom & Nes, 2006), and brings about better physical health (Giltay et al., 2004).

Is optimism universal? Gallagher, Lopez, and Pressman (2012) conducted a study using representative samples from 142 countries numbering over 150,000 participants and found that individuals of all ages, races, education levels, and socioeconomic backgrounds and most countries are optimistic and that this optimism leads to better subjective well-being and health. Optimism is not merely a benefit of living in an industrialized nation either.

But is there such a thing as being too optimistic to the point of being unrealistic? The answer is yes and Weinstein (1980) identified a tendency people have to think they are invulnerable and that others will be the victims of misfortune but not themselves. He called this error in judgment, which results in a bias towards favorable outcomes, unrealistic optimism . For instance, college students in one study were unrealistically optimistic about the likelihood they would develop alcohol related problems in the future such as having a hangover, missing classes, or having an argument with a friend over their drinking. The negative consequences of unrealistic optimism were found to be both proximal and distal (Dillard, Midboe, & Klein, 2009). Another study found that patient’s participating in early-phase oncology trials display the unrealistic optimism bias in relation to their expectation of the therapeutic benefit of the trial and that this tendency can undermine the informed consent of participants (Jansen et al., 2011).

Everything is not always roses and so expressing some pessimism can actually help us to be realistic. Defensive pessimism can help us manage our anxiety and pursue our goals by setting low expectations and mentally exploring possible outcomes of goal-relevant tasks (Norem, 2008; Norem & Cantor, 1986). Hazlett, Molden, and Sackett (2011) found that participants who were focused on growth and advancement preferred optimistic forecasts and perform better when they express an optimistic outlook while those who were concerned with safety and security preferred pessimistic forecasts and perform better when they express a pessimistic outlook.

Module Recap

That’s it. We spent an entire module talking about our – self and should feel no guilt over it. Kidding. To be serious though, we all try and answer the question of who we are and philosophers have been tackling issues related to what it means to be human and matters of human existence since the dawn of time. Our discussion focused on the self-concept, self-esteem, self-presentation, and biases and heuristics we make/use to protect our sense of self. We hope you enjoyed the wide array of issues we covered and with this topic out of the way, we can now continue our discussion in Part II of how we think about ourselves and others by focusing on ‘others.’ After this, we will round out Part II by discussing the attitudes we have about ourselves, others, and things in our world.

2nd edition

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

PsychoTreat

Social Perception – Definition, Components, Factors and Examples.

The  perception  social  relates to the way people think and give meaning to other people: how they form impressions, draw conclusions and try to explain the behavior of others, sometimes called social cognition or the study of “naive psychology », This type of  perception  focuses on the factors that influence the ways in which people understand other people and how people process, organize and remember information about others.

What is social perception?

It is the study of how people form impressions and make inferences about other people as sovereign personalities, where they learn about the feelings and  emotions  of others by collecting the information they gather from physical appearance, verbal and non-verbal communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, hand gestures, and body position or movement are just a few examples of ways that people communicate without words.

Components of social perception

There are four main components: observation, attribution, integration, and confirmation.

Observation

Observations serve as raw data of social perception, an interaction of three sources: people, situations and behavior, these sources are used as evidence to support a person’s impression or inference about others, in order to gather supporting evidence an initial impression.

People – physical influence

Although society tries to train people not to judge others for their physical traits, as social perceivers, we cannot help being influenced by hair, skin color, height, weight, style of clothing, tone of voice, etc., making a first impression.

People have a tendency to judge others by associating certain facial features with specific  personality  types . For example, studies indicate that people are perceived as stronger, more assertive, and competent if they have small eyes, low eyebrows, an angled chin, wrinkled skin, and a small forehead. Whereas baby-faced people tend to be connected to helplessness and harmlessness.

Situations – context of experiences

People are able to easily predict the sequences or outcomes of an event based on the scope and depth of their past experiences with a similar event. The ability to anticipate the outcomes of a situation is also highly influenced by an individual’s cultural background, as this inevitably shapes the types of experiences.

Situational observations lead humans to have pre-established notions about certain events or to explain the causes of human behaviors.

Behaviors – non-verbal communication

Non-verbal communication helps people express their  emotions  , attitudes and personalities, the most dominant form of non-verbal communication is the use of facial expressions to channel different emotions.

Attribution

It is to express the personality of an individual as the source or cause of their behavior during an event or situation, to fully understand the impact of personal or situational attributions, social perceivers must integrate all available information into a unified impression.

To finally confirm these impressions, people try to understand, find, and create information in the form of various biases, most importantly that social perception is determined by an individual’s  motivations  , emotions, and cognitive carrying capacity. L

With the observations drawn from people, situations and behaviors, the next step is to make inferences to identify the internal dispositions of an individual.

Attribution theories

Psychological research on attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in 1958, and was subsequently developed by others such as Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. People make attributions to understand the world around them in order to look for reasons for the particular behavior of an individual, they can make judgments about what was the cause or causes of a certain behavior.

Attribution theory is the study of what systems and models people implement to make attributions about the behavior of others, it tries to explain how we use information about the social environment to understand the behavior of others.

Integration

Unless instant judgment is made by observing people, situations, or behaviors, people integrate dispositions to form impressions.

Information integration theory

Norman H. Anderson, an American social psychologist, developed the theory of information integration in 1981, which states that impressions are made from the personal dispositions of the perceiver and a weighted average of the characteristics of the target individual.

The differences between the perceivers are due to the fact that people use themselves as a standard or frame of reference when judging or evaluating others, they tend to see that their own abilities and traits are favorable for others to have them as well, these Impressions formed on others can be influenced by the current and temporary mood of the perceiver.

A concept called, priming also affects a perceiver’s impressions of others, priming is the tendency for newly perceived or implemented concepts or words to become easy and influence the understanding of new information.

Trait information also affects people’s impressions of others, and the psychologist Solomon Asch was the first to discover that the existence of a trait tends to indicate the existence of other traits, he affirmed that there are central traits that are those that exert a strong effect on the general impressions of the perceiver. Research shows that there is a tendency for information presented at the beginning of a sequence to have a greater effect on impressions than information presented later, a concept called the primacy effect.

Accuracy of social perception

The precision of social perception has been called sensitivity and empathy, if this perception becomes imprecise, working and living together would be difficult, to be successful in society, one’s social perception must be accurate. Studies show that groups that make an accurate perception of social behavior are more efficient than groups made up of members with a less precise perception.

Similarly, in a small group, the leader’s accurate perception of his co-workers increases effectiveness, society gives greater acceptance to those who make accurate and effective perceptions of individuals in society and their behavior.

If a person makes a wrong perception of people, society does not like it. Social perception comes from the study of social and interpersonal behavior and is linked to effective social behavior.

Competence in interpersonal behavior helps to participate more effectively in group activity and discussion, when precisely perceived qualities of group members are relevant to activities only accurate social perception leads to an increase in interpersonal relationship , competition and group efficiency.

If the perception, for example, of a mental patient is not accurately made by the psychiatrist, then the diagnosis and treatment become incorrect. But in a hospital, the doctor’s perception that a mixer is unhappy and wants to leave the job is not relevant to the operation of the hospital.

Factors influencing social perception

Social perception sometimes becomes biased and wrong due to social prestige, high status in society, increased responsibility and wealth, it is also influenced by physical characteristics, attractiveness, power and recognition, education, etc.

In general, attractive high-status people doing important jobs are held more accountable for their actions than ineffective low-status people, studies support this view.

Similarly, people who consider themselves powerful in controlling their own destiny and their own actions perceive others as controllers of their own destiny. On the other hand, people who feel they have less power or impotence perceive others as controlled by external events.

Trust, personal relationship and close association with the person also influence social perception, a stranger is perceived in a different way than an already known person. While trust and good personal relationships help attribute positive factors that lead to positive social perceptions, lack of trust, bias, and prejudice, unpleasant attitudes lead to negative social perception.

The role of need, value and past experience also cannot be underestimated in social perception, feelings of gratitude are influenced by one’s perception. ‘X’ bound by ‘Y’ always perceives ‘Y’ as a better person compared to someone else who has not forced him. Furthermore, the perception becomes more positive when it perceives the favor and the obligation to be intentional than incidentally or unintentionally.

The state of the person also influences the perception and judgment of older children. Generally, a high status person is perceived and credited with having good intentions in everything they do, rather than a low status person.

When someone is perceived to do something good to him to obtain no favor, but spontaneously and out of affection or generously, it is perceived as very acceptable and is showered with compliments, whether a person’s action is deliberate or accidental is determined by the knowledge of the person’s ability.

Justifiability is another factor that affects social perception, it depends on the degree to which this action is on an appropriate ground, if the action violates ethical norms or deviates from social norms, customs and traditions, it does not stand on ground. appropriate and is therefore forced to perform a negative act due to certain compulsions beyond his control.

Examples of social perception

– A gender stereotype that has been observed in all cultures is that of women who are more patient, sensitive, affectionate, affectionate or helpful.

– Associating a particular race with certain behavioral traits or categorizing people based on their nationalities: Americans so smart, Italians so creative, Germans so punctual, or Japanese so educated, and so on.

– Religious diversity in the world is also a solid base to develop firm social perceptions, it is not necessarily a prejudice, but even the concept of groups, or the preferential treatment of people of certain religious origins, is another good example.

– Anxious or shy people often think that others are talking about them, or criticizing them, when in reality that may not be the truth.

– It is a common belief of many that beautiful people are good (or kind and friendly), this is known as the Halo effect.

– We also have many personal memories that can fit well as examples of social perception, we might have misjudged our favorite school teacher initially for being a ‘bad person’, just because she insisted on discipline.

A smile serves as an important factor in determining social perception  , many times. At any social gathering, people tend to approach others who are smiling, these smiling faces probably seem more open to a newcomer trying to break into the group.

Our attitudes, judgments, and opinions connect cognition, emotion, and action.  So as we experience it every day, our attitude translates into our actions and behavior, that being said it seems that admirers of optimism and positive  thinking  , or followers of the ‘law of attraction’, should definitely be masters at challenging. the rules of social perception. Hopefully, this impression does not count as an example of social perception.

Georgia Tarrant

Hello, how are you? My name is Georgia Tarrant, and I am a clinical psychologist. In everyday life, professional obligations seem to predominate over our personal life. It's as if work takes up more and more of the time we'd love to devote to our love life, our family, or even a moment of leisure.

• Fear of Expressing Emotions (Alexithymia): Causes, Symptoms, Treatments
• Fear Of Holes (Trypophobia): Causes, Symptoms, Characteristics, Treatment
• Fear Of Freedom: Causes, Characteristics, Complaints, Treatment
• Fear of Crossing Streets (Agyrophobia): Causes, Symptoms, Treatment