Research classes to take, or whom to atic because they can lead to indicates, however, that preju- hang out with on a Friday prejudice and discrimination. What, then, makes your mind about someone people—are common, even discrimination so bad when before you know him or her.
She was certain he was having a seizure, so she rushed him to the emergency room. Derek, an experienced pediatric nurse, recognized the problem immediately: The baby simply had the hiccups. People in many mar- didates on the basis of their ginalized groups? In fact, most of us from?
What ply to be treated like any- because of their skin color, might you do to reduce one else. So relax! When sexual orientation, disability, your chances of misper- you talk to people, try not economic status, or sex is a ceiving others?
Interventions to reduce is an example of unfair dis- nervous when talking to prejudice and discrimination in children and adolescents. Oskamp Ed. Concerned pp. Chicago: University of Chicago ing housing, getting a job, becoming rigid or hyper- Press; Greenwald, A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- they love. This pattern of behavior, ogy, 74, — Learn It: What does it mean to engage in interpersonal perception? How are se- lection, organization, and interpretation related to one another?
In writing, describe what the person did and what your perception was. What they often want the most is simply to be treated like anyone else. Even though we rely a great deal on our perceptions, research shows that those perceptions are vulnerable to a number of biases, many of which operate outside our conscious awareness.
You can probably think of stereotypes for many groups. How about people with physical or mental disabilities? Wealthy people? Homeless people? Gays and lesbians? What stereotypes come to mind when you think about yourself? What stereotypes come to your mind for It may be true, for instance, that elderly people are more this person?
Stereotypes focus our attention only on the generalizations, however. Why am I the one who has to do everything around here? Nick: Whatever. Nick may recall that Carmen nagged and criticized him without remem- bering that she also listened to what he was saying.
If you met a woman and assumed on the basis of this stereotype that she enjoyed being around children, you might be wrong—however, you also might be right.
Not every woman enjoys spending time with children, but some do. By the same token, not every elderly person is conserva- tive, but some are. Not every sorority sister likes to party, but some do. At this point, you might expect me to recommend that you abandon stereotyping altogether.
Actually, that advice would be unrealistic. A more productive way of dealing with stereotypes involves two elements: aware- ness and communication. First, be aware of the stereo- typical perceptions you make. What assumptions do you make, for instance, when you meet an elderly Asian woman, an African American teenage boy, or an adult in a wheelchair? Try to be aware of when you do this, however, and also to remember that your percep- tions may not be accurate.
Second, instead of assuming your perceptions of other people are correct, get to know these people, and let your perceptions be guided by what you learn about them as individuals. What stereotypes would you of them. Lee: Thank you for meeting with me. Gina [speaking to the interpreter]: Uh, tell him I can show him some options, but this could take a while if everything has to go through you.
Lee: You can speak directly to me. Lee: Just talk to me like you would anyone else, please. I would take a glass of water, though. Gina: Absolutely. Lee: I appreciate it, thanks. This gives Lee the impression that Gina is professional and considerate. At the time, he had just come from a contentious visit with the manager of his salon, and he was in a bad mood when Suzette sat down in his chair.
As a result, he seemed distant and uninterested while he cut her hair. His behavior made a poor impression on Suzette, and she decided to switch to another stylist at the same salon after that.
As she continued to see Trey on her subsequent visits, however, he would always greet her warmly and ask her about her family. Over time, Suzette began to realize that her initial negative impression of Trey was inaccurate and that he is actually a nice, caring person.
Tan and Dr. Meyer, to discuss his over earlier treatment options. At a perception. Diego formed a positive impression of Dr. Tan, in the end of their visit, Dr. To Di- ego, this approach made Dr. As you might guess, Diego left the second appointment with a negative impression of Dr. On the contrary, he felt good about both doctors at the beginning of his appoint- ments.
Rather, the last impression Diego formed of Dr. Meyer before he left was negative, and that impression 90 remained with him after the visit. The answer is that both appear 50 to be more important than any impressions that we 40 form in between. You probably have a better 30 recollection of how the movie started and how it ended 20 d than you do of all the events that happened in between. Tan, neg- most recent impressions are atively for Dr.
Figure 4. These elements can create what psychologists call a perceptual set, or a pre- Perceptual disposition to perceive only what we want or expect to perceive.
Without the help of contextual cues such as blue or pink what we want or expect to baby clothes, we sometimes have a hard time telling whether an infant is male or perceive. A dramatic example of perceptual set occurred after the publication of a photo taken of the surface of Mars. In , while surveying the Martian topography, Viking Orbiter 1 captured what many observers believed to be the unmistakable image of a human face. See Figure 4. Picture a, taken in , shows what to most people looks like a hu- man face.
Indeed, the face is such a fundamental tool for interpersonal recognition and communication that we are led to recognize it in nearly any pattern that resembles it. People who are deeply religious may perceive medical healings as miracles or answers to prayer, whereas others see them as natural responses to medication.
Studies show that newborns— perceptual set. West- than at similar drawings that do not such as the picture on the right. Sources: Monloch, C. Face perception ily sitting indoors, with a during early infancy. Psychological Science, 10, —; Morton, J. When this draw- recognition. Psychological Review, 98, — People in Western societies are used to houses and other buildings in which walls are at right angles to one another, with windows em- bedded in them.
Illusion and culture. Gombrich Eds. Illusion in nature and art pp. In many African societies, however, homes have rounded walls. As a result, people in these societies are less likely than Westerners to see the vertical image in the middle of the drawing as the corner of a room.
In addition, women in some Af- rican societies commonly carry boxes or baskets by balancing them on their heads. Neither way of interpreting the drawing is necessarily correct or incorrect. Perceptual set is relevant for interpersonal communication because it can shape the way we interpret social situations.
The man seems ir- ritated, the woman looks as if she has recently been crying, and neither spouse talks to—or even looks at—the other. Instead, his perceptual set leads him to perceive that the couple must be worried about something, such as the failing health of one of their children. Timmy stands right in front of the TV, blocking your view. Although most people grow out of the egocentric stage by mid-childhood, even adults can behave egocentrically from time to time.
This happens when we assume that other people experience the world the same way we do. Marty is very sociable and outgoing; Paul is very quiet and somewhat shy. Paul is surprised, all right, but not in a good way. It turns out that the last thing he wanted to do was spend his birthday at a loud, crowded party making conversation with people he hardly knew.
So, he spends 30 minutes at the party and then leaves. Paul and Marty are both being egocentric here, because each is assuming that the other should react to the situation the way he would. To what extent do you communicate in altercentric ways? When we pay the most attention to positive informa- tion, we are exhibiting what researchers call a positivity bias.
People who cling to an idealized view of their roman- perception. On the line before each statement, record your level of agreement on a 1—5 scale: Higher numbers mean you agree more, and lower numbers mean you agree less. In conversations with other people, I usually: 1. Try to see things from their point of view. Focus mostly on their ideas or opinions.
Attempt to avoid making assumptions about what they think or feel. Try to focus more on them than on myself. Your result should be between 8 and This score represents the extent to which you try to be altercentric, rather than egocentric, when communicating with others. If you scored between 8 and 18, your conversation style is primarily egocentric.
A score between 19 and 29 suggests that you strike a balance between egocentrism and altercentrism. As you might have guessed, the negativity bias is particularly strong in competitive situations, such as a job interview or graduate school admis- sions. The answer is that you, like most peo- ple, will still form a negative impression.
In other words, the negative information will override the positive. The more we know about perceptual errors, however, the better we can think critically and question our judgments to form more accurate perceptions of the people around us. Learn It: What are the three stages of the stereotyping process? What does it mean to be egocentric? Try It: Watch the movie Crash, which highlights numerous cultural stereo- types. When are you most likely to make egocentric perceptions of others?
Why did Paul leave his party so soon? We want to know. Your adviser asks you why behavior. A second dimension of attributions is whether the cause of a behavior is stable or unstable. Why was your boss late for lunch? Notice that these are both external attributions. Internal causes for behavior also can be either stable or unstable, however. Imagine that you are trying to understand why your roommate snapped at you this morning.
Finally, causes for behavior also vary in how controllable they are. This is a controllable attribution, because the cause of his lateness spending time with friends is within his control. Alternatively, you might assume he got into a car ac- cident. Locus, stability, and controllability are all related to one another.
In fact, any combination of locus, stability, and controllability is possible. Table 4. After their argument, they both go to bed angry. As a result, our attributions are often less accurate than they ideally should be. Three of the most common attribution errors are the self-serving bias, the funda- mental attribution error, and overattribution. Below are eight attributions representing every possible combination of locus, stability, and controllability. Personality traits such as being a jerk are internal and usually stable, but he should be able to control whether he acts like a jerk.
Self-serving Self-serving bias. The self-serving bias refers to our tendency to attribute our suc- bias The ten- cesses to stable, internal causes while attributing our failures to unstable, external dency to at- causes. These attributions are to internal called self-serving because they suggest that our successes are deserved but our fail- causes and ures are not our fault. Research shows, however, that we often extend this tendency to other im- portant people in our lives.
The self-serving bias is a natural, self- protective tendency, although it is a form of self-delusion. Similarly, most We often extend the self-serving bias to our of us would admit that our successes sometimes result relationships.
Was it because your partner is of the curve, not because of your performance. We might like to think, for instance, that we are responsible for everything that is going well in our relationships but are not responsible for anything that is going poorly. Again, this attitude is unrealistic. Fundamental attribution error. Just how strong is the fundamental attribution error? When the woman acted friendly, the students maintained it was because she is a friendly person, and when she acted unfriendly, they maintained it was because she is an unfriendly person.
This would be an internal attribution for her behavior, which the fundamental attribution error increases your likelihood of making. Was your attribution correct, however? Ask yourself what external forces might have motivated her behavior. To the extent that we base our decisions on inaccurate attributions, we run the risk of needlessly damaging our re- lationships in the process.
Over- Overattribution. A third common attribution error is overattribution, in which we attribution single out one or two obvious characteristics of a person and then attribute every- The tendency thing he or she does to those characteristics. Although this example might seem inconsequential, overattribution can contrib- ute to problematic behavior in some contexts.
For instance, psychologists William Schweinle, William Ickes, and Ira Bernstein have studied overattribution in the con- text of marital aggression. Schweinle and his colleagues found that the more men engage in this form of overattribution with women in general, the more likely they are to be verbally abu- sive with their own wives. As one re- sult, men form defensive thoughts that provoke their verbal aggression.
Overattribution is particularly easy to do with mar- Overattribution can be easy to do with people ginalized groups such as sexual minorities, homeless in socially marginalized groups, such as immi- people, and people with disabilities. Humans are complex social beings, have much experience interacting with them. This lack though. We cannot understand people simply by characterizing their most obvious qualities.
Like other forms of perception, attributions are important but prone to error. It simply acknowledges that the self-serving bias, the fundamen- tal attribution error, and overattribution are easy mistakes to commit.
Learn It: What does it mean to say that attributions vary according to locus, sta- bility, and controllability? How are the self-serving bias, the fundamental attribution error, and overattribution examples of attribution errors? Try It: For one week, keep a list of all the attributions you give to someone else about something you have done. At the end of the week, go back through your list, and evaluate each attribution for accuracy. How many were accurate?
Were any of your attributions overly negative? With which group s of people would you be most likely to make overattributions? Why do you gists William Schweinle, Wil- regarding the female patient suppose overattribution liam Ickes, and Ira Bernstein to look for evidence of over- of criticism is related to recruited 86 married men to attribution bias. In particular, how verbally aggressive a report on their tendencies to the raters looked to see how man is?
After writing researchers calculated a score or parent-child pairs. As predicted, the basis of overattribu- they found that the more tion are often incorrect, a man overattributed though. Empathic inaccuracy in husband to wife aggres- tendency causes sion: The overattribution bias. Personal verbal aggression. Relationships, 9, — Here are three common errors: Self-serving bias We attribute our successes to internal causes and our failures to external causes.
Overattribution We focus on one characteristic of a person and attribute a wide variety of behaviors to that characteristic. We stereotype people. We assume they think the same ways we do. We attribute all their behaviors Most of the mistakes in to one or two characteristics.
Guerrero, Arizona State University. This book explores contemporary research on the biological and physiological foundations of human communication. The book is co-edited by Michael J. Beatty, University of Miami, and the late James C. McCroskey, West Virginia University. This book, co-authored with Alan C. Mikkelson, Whitworth University, and Colin Hesse, Oregon State University, introduces readers to a physiological approach to understanding human communication.
In this book, I review contemporary theory and scholarship related to the communication of affection, and I introduce my own theory, Affection Exchange Theory.
This book describes and critiques contemporary research on nonverbal behavior in the context of close relationships. This book was co-authored by Laura K.
This text equips students to find and make the most of their communication internships. The book is co-authored by Michele L. The first edition of this book was published in , and the second edition was published in The Loneliness Cure. Learn More. Other Books. Communication Matters 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, This is the fourth edition of my introductory communication textbook, which comes with extensive online support.
The Handbook of Communication Science and Biology Routledge, This in-press volume is a repository of cutting-edge research and theory on the relationship between communication behavior and biology.
Interpersonal Communication 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, This is the newest edition of my introductory interpersonal communication textbook, which comes with extensive online support. Affectionate Communication in Close Relationships Cambridge University Press, This newly released book offers a scholarly integration, critique, and extension of the empirical work on affectionate communication in human relationships.
Public Speaking Matters 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, This third-edition textbook for introductory public speaking comes with extensive online learning materials and instructor support.
0コメント