The Social Psychological Lens - Part II
How our Nonverbal Messages are Perceived
![Picture](/uploads/1/6/4/4/16443238/1362502117.jpg)
So far in this tutorial, we have focused much attention on nonverbal behaviour from the perspective of the person displaying the behaviour. Yet social psychology also offers much insight into how our nonverbal messages are perceived by others.
As social beings, we are curious to understand those we come into contact with, whether communicating with them face-to-face, or observing them from afar. Thus, other people are keenly tuned into our nonverbal behaviour to find out who we are, what attitudes we hold, and why we do the things we do. The process through which people try to understand one another is called social perception (Kassin et al., 2013), and it involves a series of three phases: observation, attribution, and integration. This process will be discussed in detail below.
As social beings, we are curious to understand those we come into contact with, whether communicating with them face-to-face, or observing them from afar. Thus, other people are keenly tuned into our nonverbal behaviour to find out who we are, what attitudes we hold, and why we do the things we do. The process through which people try to understand one another is called social perception (Kassin et al., 2013), and it involves a series of three phases: observation, attribution, and integration. This process will be discussed in detail below.
Phase One: Observation
The first step in the social perception process is the one where our nonverbal behaviours play a key role. In the observation phase, the messages we convey through our use of kinesics, paralanguage, haptics, proxemics, chronemics, and artifacts are first ‘picked up’ by another person as they observe us. For example, at the beginning of the Elements of Nonverbal Behaviour section of this tutorial, we illustrated how you conveyed impatience, the fact that you were busy, and your frustration while standing at a street corner. While you did this, someone standing across the street ‘picked up’ these nonverbal messages by observing your finger tapping, watch-glancing, and sighing.
It is important to note that the observations within this phase are often situation-specific – that is, someone’s perceptions of our behaviour are influenced by the expectations set out by the social scripts of the situation. That said, perceivers (those observing our behaviour) will quickly notice whether the behaviour they see follows the social script or not.
It is important to note that the observations within this phase are often situation-specific – that is, someone’s perceptions of our behaviour are influenced by the expectations set out by the social scripts of the situation. That said, perceivers (those observing our behaviour) will quickly notice whether the behaviour they see follows the social script or not.
Figure 12 illustrates a job interview situation with both a nonverbal message sender (the interviewee) and a social perceiver (the interviewer) in the observation phase. When the message sender walks in, the social perceiver is quick to notice the sender’s kinesic behaviour (her slouching posture), use of artifacts (nice clothing), and chronemic behaviour (the fact that she is late for her interview). The perceiver also notices that the message sender’s chronemic behaviour violates the expectations of this social script (she is expected to be on time for the interview). |
Phase Two: Attribution
The next step in the social perception process is the attribution phase. Attributions can be thought of as the explanations perceivers make for the behaviours they witness in the observation phase (Kassin et al., 2013). During this phase, perceivers try to ‘make sense of people’ by attributing the behaviour they have witnessed to a specific cause that they can identify. The causes that perceivers attribute the behaviour to fall into two categories: personal causes (occurring when behaviours are deemed to be caused by personal characteristics of the individual being observed) or situational causes (occurring when behaviours are deemed to be caused by factors outside of the individual being observed). When a perceiver deems that the behaviour they have observed has a personal cause – such as the individual’s personality or attitude – the perceiver makes a personal attribution. Likewise, when the behaviour is thought to be caused by a situational factor – such as the environment or context of the situation – the perceiver makes a situational attribution. For example, if we refer back to the scenario where someone is watching you standing on a street corner, they make a personal attribution when they decide that your finger tapping, watch-glancing, and sighing is caused by your own anxious personality (or perhaps even your negative attitude towards the idea of waiting for traffic lights to change). However, if they decide that your behaviour is caused by the fact that you have an important meeting to go to and that you have been walking for six blocks since you could not find a place to park nearby, they make a situational attribution.
When considering which type of attribution is made, it should be noted that most people have a tendency to commit a fundamental attribution error when determining the causes of observed behaviour. Fundamental attribution error is described by Kassin et al. (2013) as “the tendency to focus on the role of personal causes and underestimate the impact of situations on other people’s behaviour” (p. 115). This means that people who observe your behaviour as you stand at the street corner will be more likely to attribute your finger tapping and sighing to an anxious personality trait than they are to attribute your behaviour to the result of the situational context. It is because of this fundamental attribution error that Kassin et al. (2013) describes the attribution phase as a two-step process. The first step, Kassin et al. (2013) illustrates, is automatic and results in personal attributions; the second step requires effort on behalf of the perceiver to adjust their perceptions and account for situational factors.
When considering which type of attribution is made, it should be noted that most people have a tendency to commit a fundamental attribution error when determining the causes of observed behaviour. Fundamental attribution error is described by Kassin et al. (2013) as “the tendency to focus on the role of personal causes and underestimate the impact of situations on other people’s behaviour” (p. 115). This means that people who observe your behaviour as you stand at the street corner will be more likely to attribute your finger tapping and sighing to an anxious personality trait than they are to attribute your behaviour to the result of the situational context. It is because of this fundamental attribution error that Kassin et al. (2013) describes the attribution phase as a two-step process. The first step, Kassin et al. (2013) illustrates, is automatic and results in personal attributions; the second step requires effort on behalf of the perceiver to adjust their perceptions and account for situational factors.
Figure 13 illustrates the job interview situation in the automatic first step of the attribution phase. Here, the perceiver automatically focuses on personal causes of the sender’s nonverbal behaviour by attributing her slouching to a lack of confidence, her clothing to good taste, and her lateness (and violation of social script) to a negative attitude towards the job. |
In Figure 14, we see the job interview situation in the effortful second step of the attribution phase. After hearing the message sender’s explanation for her behaviour, the perceiver adjusts his attribution to account for situational causes of the behaviour. He realizes that her slouching and lateness are related to the situation, and concludes that she may not lack confidence after all, and likely has a positive attitude towards the job considering that she arrived even after a car accident. |
As you might notice, the effortful second step in which perceivers account for situational causes usually requires an accompanied verbal explanation. Thus, we truly get a sense of how quickly others may judge us from our nonverbal behaviour. If the message sender in the preceding figures did not offer the verbal explanation she did, the interviewer might have maintained that her behaviour was a reflection of her lack of confidence and negative attitude.
Phase Three: Integration
The last step of the social perception process is the integration phase. During this phase, the perceiver tries to get a complete ‘picture’ of the person they are perceiving by combining the information they have gathered through their observations and attributions. This complete picture is called an impression. According to Kassin et al. (2013), the manner through which social perceivers form impressions “does not follow the rules of cold logic” (p. 123), and often the perceiver’s own characteristics will play a role in impression formation.
For example, let us refer to Figure 15 and assume that the job interview has continued for some time. The message sender (interviewee) resumes her poor posture and frequently speaks in a shaky, high-pitched voice. The perceiver (interviewer) then attributes the resumed poor posture to a lack of confidence once again, and also attributes the sender’s paralanguage to her anxiety. What is more, the perceiver is a bit of an impatient man, who thinks that people should simply ‘get over’ personal issues like car accidents when they come to a workplace. As a result, the perceiver combines what he has gleaned about the message sender (she has a positive attitude and good taste in clothes, but anxiety and a lack of confidence; I want someone who can put their personal issues aside) to form the impression that she is not a good candidate for the job. |
Above all, this tutorial’s glance at the social perception process reveals just how powerful our nonverbal behaviours are to the resulting impressions other people make of us. If our aim is to communicate for strategic self-presentation purposes (that is, motivated by a desire to gain acceptance), we must be aware of how loudly our nonverbal behaviour is ‘speaking’. In the preceding Figure 15, the interviewee could have given all of the correct answers to the interviewer’s questions verbally, but in the end the interviewer’s impression is formed from his perceptions of her nonverbal behaviour.