I’m listening to some good old Imogen Heap. Feel free to join as you read:
Recently I have been pretty interested in the art of forming first impressions. As I mentioned in my last entry, my adventures in Lubbock this summer inevitably meant that I was constantly meeting strangers and “sizing them up”. By this I mean I used a super helpful heuristic, or cognitive shortcut, which allowed me to process a heck of a lot of information with minimal effort. Anderson (1961) introduced the information integration theory in an effort to explain this process of impression formation.
Anderson argues that when a perceiver forms his/her impression of a subject, they base the opinion on (1) their own disposition, as well as a (2) weighted average of the subject’s traits.
That being said, the first application that comes to mind (this is incriminating) is the process of Greek recruitment. Part of the fun of being in a sorority is recruiting new members to initiate into the elite group of friends that you pay for. Of course, I say this in jest, but hear me out here…
1) Without fail, during recruitment, I see my sisters congregating toward girls that are very much like themselves. This goes along with the first component of the information integration theory. My sisters, along with myself, base their opinions of first-year women on their perceptions of themselves. For instance, the girls that prefer shopping at hypothetical stores like SouthFace or J. Blue generally gravitate toward girls that fit into this fashion scheme. Or, women who value academics will brag to the chapter about their new “rush crush”, who is BOUND to have a 4.0 this semester. The girls who value honesty love the “genuine” first-years; the girls who value classiness love the “polished” first-years; the girls who value…well, you get the idea. It’s all just very predictable, yet very interesting to observe.
2) When my sisters brag about their prospective new members, they tend to list their traits to me. It’s interesting to witness the second component of the information integration theory when this begins. At the start of the semester, our conversations go a lot like this:
SISTER A: Oh my goodness, Gertude is so funny and smart!
SISTER B: Funny and smart? OMG I want her to be our SISTER!!!
SISTER A: You’re right! If I were to average “funny” (9) and “smart” (10), I’d totally give Gertrude’s traits a score of 9.5.
As the semester progresses, it gets a little more like this…
SISTER A: Gertrude is funny, smart, and a good conversationalist!
SISTER B: Funny (9), smart (10), and a good conversationalist (8)? That’s pretty awesome!
SISTER A: Yeah! She’s definitely a 9. Potential SISTER material for SURE.
Then, as Gertrude has had more time to make herself at home at Mouthwestern, conversations tend to head this direction…
SISTER A: Gertrude sure is opinionated (6) and judgmental (3). But, I mean, she’s funny (9), smart (10), a good conversationalist (9), and pretty nice (8).
SISTER B: (6+3+9+10+9+8)/6= 7.5. But due to the primacy effect, opinionated and judgmental have more weight. So that would be (6+6+3+3+9+10+9+8)/8= 6.75.
SISTER A: hm…now that you put it that way, I like Edith a lot more. She’s smart (10), funny (9), a good conversationalist (9), and nice (8). She’s a little opinionated (6), and judgmental (3), but who isn’t these days?
SISTER B: You’re right. Edith is so much better. (10+10+9+9+9+8+6+3)/8= 8.
Ok, ok, so it’s not exactly like this. But at the same time it kind of is. My sisters and I (quite efficiently, I might add) create a subconscious weighted average of the traits of first-year women in an effort to determine our impressions of them. Although this sounds catty and immature (hopefully you can see that I’m playing it up—I don’t want to get in trouble with my sisters for misrepresenting our group!), it is actually a very efficient system that allows us to “integrate information” rapidly. We meet so many potential new members, it is beneficial to make quick judgments based on our own individual values as the perceiver, as well as a quick weighted average of the subject’s characteristics.
Anderson, N. H., & Barrios, A. A. Effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(2), 346-350.
No comments:
Post a Comment