Chapter 4 Social Perception

        In chapter 4, Social Perceptions, the use of non-verbal cues, implicit personality theories, our determination of why people do stuff, and the cultural role of attribution formation are discussed. Non-verbal communication is broken down into the 6 universal emotional facial expressions of anger, fear, disgust, happiness, sadness, and surprise; these being cross-cultural and non-species specific. Also, the affect blend that occurs when we are experiencing more than one emotion at a time. Other forms of non-verbal communication would be display rules, that are not cross-cultural but instead very culturally specific, and emblems that are also not cross-cultural, and should be carefully studied as to not offend others from other cultures. Implicit personality theories are us simply filling in the blanks when not enough verbal communication is present and we turn to our already premade schemas to fill in the missing information, whether our schemas are correct or not. Each person’s schemas are different but do get passed down from generationally and based on culture. In order to answer why people do stuff, we must look at the attribution theory byways of its internal (personal attitudes and character) and/or external (based on a specific situation occurring) nature. A covariation model pits these two against each other were we rely on consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information to make our decision. Where we being flawed human beings are susceptible to the fundamental attribution error where we tend to match up to how a person's behavior and disposition should go together. We tend to do this by way of a 2 step process that begins with a dispositional analysis that can be, but not always is, followed up by an analysis of the situation if we possibly feel we are making an error in judgment. This chapter also discusses on, several occasions, the distinct differences between eastern and western cultures; eastern cultures being interdependent cultures that view themselves through outsiders’ eyes and with more holistic thinking, and western cultures being individualistic thinkers that analyze everything and are very self-absorbed. Attributing to the self-serving attributions of defensive attributions (mortality avoidance), belief in a just world (good and bad people get what they deserve, karma), and the bias blind spot (we are not susceptible to attribution biases, other people are). The cultural role in attribution formation is definitely different depending upon the culture you’ve grown up in.
        
        I can honestly say that I am aware that I am a girl made up of schemas. I am fully dependent upon them and I put everyone I meet and every situation I’m in into one. Though, I would like to think that I tend to think more holistically than the apparent, traditional westerner. I like to look at the situations surrounding people and when I feel that a certain situation merits my attention because I have learned that other people's business does not need to be mine, I take in the surroundings of that situation instead of focusing on just one aspect/person. People sometimes get mad at me because I like to be the outsider looking in, including on myself, that way I can see the whole picture instead of one piece. What is one piece? One-piece never finished a puzzle or told a whole story. I do look at the dispositional attributes of any one person or situation but at the same time, I am also looking for what is causing them to have that disposition. Everyone does not act a certain way for no reason. They act a certain way for very specific reasons and while I use my schemas to definitely fill in what I cannot find clear answers to, I always continue to look for those answers until my puzzle pieces all fit how they should. Because I do these people around me wish I was more apathetic, empathetic, and/or sympathetic but sometimes I just have to look at the whole picture as facts and assess it in terms of what is really going on. That way I can make my decision of whether this situation/person is something/someone I want to be around. That in itself does allude to the fact that I do follow an individualist approach; since I look at the “whole” for myself, not for the good of the group. I was not raised with strong affiliations to anything/anyone so I have only myself to affiliate to.