First Impressions

How quickly?
Faces Willis and Todorov 2006. Limited time vs unconstrained time. Judge
trustworthiness. High correlation between flash and longer impressions,
almost the same.
Todorov (2005) compare politicians pictures and judge competence.
Compared with vote number. Seems to be around 65-75% to predict.
Competence, intelligence leadership. Not predictive- trustworthiness,
likeability.
Mulluer Mazel- Cadets and dominance from face
Rule Ambady- power traits in face (competence, dominance, facial maturity),
warmth(like, trust), leadership ability. Compared against CEO and profitability
and revenue
Face width to height ratio (WHR) related to testosterone. Width is
untrustworthy, aggression. (stirrat and perret). Trust game. Enter game and
take 3 pounds. If passed on, 2 pounds more. Second person can choose fair
or unfair split. Wider face decreases trust.
Wong, ormison. Fortune 500, wider faces ceo are more profitable.
Attractiveness, babyfacedness, positive effect, group membership, gaze
direction,
Rule ambady 2008 predict gay or straight. Better than chance. Hair style,
mouth, eyes. How faces are chosen (implicitly stereotypes).
Infer traits from reading sentences about behaviors. Surprise recall test. (STI)
spontaneous trait inferences.
Todorov Uleman 2002. When we learn about behavior, do we infer a trait
about the actor? Face and sentence. Then see photo only. Have you seen a
trait word in the sentence? Compare flase recall. Traits are spontantous
inferred. Inked to the actor in memory. 2 seconds per face.
Big 5 personality traits.
CANOE, conscientiousness, agreeability, neuroticism(emotional stability),
openness, extraversion
Gosling 2002 college students room
Back et al. Facebook profiles. Number of friends is not very good at doing
extraversion. Neither does that for social attractiveness.
Tong et al 2008
Thin slices Johanssen 1973. Lights on parts of body. Recorded walking. Tell
gender, person with movement.
Amabady Rosenthall.. teacher evaluations
Expectations of teachers, babad, rosenthalls.
Implicit attitudes- marriage
Towles-schwen fazio, 2006. Relationships satisfaction.

Explicit (self measured) easier, implicit (indirect measured) harder

Updating. Diagnostic, implicit vision will be robust, Extremely robust.
Cone and Ferguson. Bob and control faces. One extremely negative
statement flips it.
AMP
Explicit self esteem. Attitude towards self. No clear link between performance
and good stuff and high self esteem.
Explicit self esteem extremely difficult to measure.
Implicit self esteem. Use something associated with self. Instant endowment,
3x more when we own it. Name letter effect. Initials are more attractive.
Women like first name, men last name letter. Birthday- japan birthday
number liked.
Low self complexity- high overlap. Small number of highly related aspects.
Complexity- extent to which include many concepts with low overlap.
Stress (Linville) Session 1- life stressors; Session 2: physical and depression
sessions
Affective spillover- low self-complexity may result in higher potential spillover
from one aspect of the self to the whole self concept
Acquiring f knowledge. Compare ideal and ought selves. Use other people.
Feedback:
Self enhancement- we want to think we are better.
Sedikides- Self enhancement universal, depends on what is most important
to self.
Self verification: other ppl recognize our weaknesses too.
Self assess- accurate
Maier- solve the problem. Two strings. Tie and swing. Dont know when
stimulus affects us, can generate reasons though.
Optimistic bias.
Taylor and Brown: assume control in chance siutations, optimistic of future,
self enhanced judgements.
Positive illusions related to social bonding, coping more popular, positive
mood, more helping, initiate conversations, cooperative strategies with
others
Session 1: How I see myself questinonnaire
Session 2: lab stress challenge paradigm: count backwards by 13 under
pressure.
High self enhancers respond better physiologically.
Lie witness news, overclaiming about fictitious events. View of self
knowledge and overclaim correlated. Those people who know more are also
more likely to overclaim even when they have real knowledge.
Stereotypes:Non verbal bias. Watching two actor and video clips.
Judgements based on group membership. Emphasis on processes in memory
system. Distinction between automatic vs controlled. How they are stored

Def: Cognitive structures that contain our knowledge beliefs about a certain
social group
Explicit measures. How to measure if people have stereotypes.
Jones siegel 1971. Told ppl hooked up to lie detection to get around
sensitivity and reporting bias. Machine reported less bias than no machine.
Showed reporting bias.
McCauley stitt. Stereotype ratio. Group question/ overall people question
Park and Rothbert: Percentage for social categories. Believed to be
categorized by a group.
Swim sexism scale- Agree or disagree. rare to see sexism on tv. Society has
reached a point where men and women reached equal opportunity for
achievement
Glicke and Fiske. Ambivalent sexism inventory. Hostile and valence belief.
Implicit: participants dont realize their stereotypes are being measured and
how.
Linguistic intergroup bias. People in our group we use abstract language for
positive, concrete for negative. Opposite for outgroup members.
Mass et al. Hunters vs environmentalists. Shown cartoon of them doing
positive or negative things. Stereotype effect pronounced when group is
under threat.
Priming measures- methodologies that measure the knowledge that is
automatically activated upon a stimulus.
Memories are connected by semantic similarity. (bird robin vs chair robin)
Devine 1989- African American related stimulus (not aggressive i.e.
basketball, Africa, rhythm) Either 80% or 20% related primes. Donald
ambiguous statement and rate aggression. 80% rate higher aggression.
However, used stimuli related to stereotypes of the group
Lepore and brown: does category or person activation lead to activation?

Is stereotype activation really inevitable?

Implicit Association test- greenwald et all. Measures the target concept
discrimination (i.e. men vs women) and an attribute dimension (career vs
family).
Gender vs career (liberal vs science)
Male science. Female arts. Congruent trials.
Flipped incongruent. Measure times. Nosek 2009 300,000 online participants.
By country. Compared against sex differences in eigth grade achievement
scores. Strong relationship.
Reverse correlation- high vs low prejudiced people select between blurred
features. Dotsch et al. Correspond with level of prejudice.
Opposing stereotypes simultaneously activated? Freeman Ambady. Mouse
tracking. Adjective, typical vs atypical gender faces. Trajectory of the mouse.
Stereotypes belonging to alternate social categories can be simultaneously
and partially activated.
Gilbert and Hixon. Some under cognitive load. Asian stereotype. No evidence
of stereotype activation when under stress. Word fragment phase. Then test
activation by listening to tape, then rating her personality. 1st phase is same
as before. 2nd activation phase rated against consistent and inconsistent
traits. Stereotyping activation only for busy people. Busyness makes
stereotypes less likely to be activated in the first place but more likely to be
applied if already activated.
Zadra and Profit. IAT and time of day. Midday less stereotyping because of
more resources.
Motivation: rebound effect of motivation to avoid stereotyping: Macrae,
Motivation to restore self esteem: spencer, kunda - go beyond first few
seconds of first impression, look at stereotype activation. White vs black
mental health expert video. 15 seconds in show implicit stereotype
activation. 12 minutes later, no evidence for stereotype activation.
Kunda case 2: Make decision about court case. Watched black or white
student who they knew either agreed or disagreed. Measure stereotype
activation. Thought student disagreed showed stereotype activation.
Perceivers judgement, effect, behavior:
Subtle bias: even when there are no actual negative outcomes, mere
possibility of discrimination significantly disrupts task performance and
achievement.

Subtle should be more disruptive.

Mendoza-Denton: female undergrad met with male grad student. Ambiguous,
chauvinist, progressive office. Rated cognitive ability. Stroop test. Depends
on rejection sensitivity. Ambiguous is the most hindered.
Murphy et all Black participants interacted for 10 minutes with actors.
Through cover story saw confederates answers on racial issues. No bias,
subtle, or blatant. Matched with nonverbal actions of white actors. One had
nonverbal good, answers bad. Same pattern.
Page gould. Intergroup contact. Recent contest to reduce intergroup implicit
prejudice. Lei et al. 17 approachess!
Evaluative conditioning (relearning ) outgroup with positivity , counter
stereotyping examples, overcoming biases.