心理学与生活-第97章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


they　typically　learn　the　course　materials　more　thoroughly　than　they　did　as　“students。”　This　experience　
makes　an　excellent　addition　to　their　vita。　For　those　who　do　a　good　job；　the　incentive　of　a　letter　of　
remendation　is　often　potent。　We　may　offer　first…time　undergraduate　TAs　the　option　of　team…teaching　two　
sections　in　order　to　share　the　anxiety；　preparation　load；　and　classroom　activities。　

Typically；　undergraduates　at　Stanford　have　taken　sections　for　one　credit　beyond　the　units　for　the　lecture　
course。　When　the　sections　are　organized　around　research　projects；　the　grade　is　based　on　general　class　
performance　and　attendance；　not　on　any　exams。　We　have　found　that　making　sections　optional；　instead　of　
required；　decreases　the　number　of　unmotivated　students　who　register　for　them。　

EXPERIMENTS　AND　DEMONSTRATIONS　

DOMAIN　TITLE　

Social　Perception　（First　class　“icebreaker”）　Impression　Management　and　Formation　
Sensory　Perception　Coping　with　Being　Temporarily　Blind　
Methodology　Reaction　Times　Can　Be　Revealing　
Conditioning　Salivating　for　Pavlov　
Memory　and　Cognition　Strategies　for　Enhancing　Memory　
Motivation　and　Assessment　Detecting　Guilt　and　Deception　
Psychopathology　Suicide：　Intentions　and　Acts　
Ethics　and　Research　Evaluation　and　Research　Ethics　
Psychotherapy　Clinical　Interventions　

Both　graduate　and　undergraduate　student　TAs　report　that　being　able　to　use　this　set　of　materials　had　many　
benefits。　Among　them　they　noted：　lessening　of　anxiety　at　the　start　of　their　teaching　experience；　increased　
confidence　in　presenting　a　variety　of　topics　and　approaches；　and　saved　preparation　time。　Use　of　these　
materials　enabled　TAs　to　perform　different　functions　across　a　set　of　activities　and　generally　created　a　

378　


positive　feeling　among　their　students　that　something　worthwhile　was　happening　in　the　discussion　sections。　

379　


IMPRESSION　MANAGEMENT　AND　FORMATION　

OBJECTIVES　

1。　To　acquaint　class　members　with　one　another　and　to　provide　a　first…session　“icebreaker”　to　get　
students　talking。　
2。　To　stimulate　discussion　about　how　people　form　impressions　about　others　and　how　they　manage　
the　impressions　others　will　form　about　them。　
3。　To　examine　how　people’s　beliefs　influence　their　social　judgments。　
4。　To　demonstrate　how　interesting　questions　can　be　studied　experimentally　and　how　subjects’
responses　can　be　quantified　and　analyzed。
OVERVIEW　

In　the　short　time　that　the　class　has　assembled；　it　is　likely　that　two　processes　have　been　going　on：　impression　
management　and　impression　formation。　Impression　management　is　a　plex　set　of　verbal　and　nonverbal　
behaviors　that　a　person　engages　in　with　the　intent　to　appear　in　a　desired　way。　Impression　formation　is　the　
process　of　making　judgments　about　the　attributes　of　other　people。　In　this　section；　we　will　do　the　following：　

1。　Begin　by　going　around　the　room　and　having　the　students　introduce　themselves　by　answering　the　
question；　“Who　Am　I？”　The　“Who　Am　I？”　test　is　an　old　projective　test　that　repeatedly　asks　
respondents　to　answer　the　question　“Who　are　you？”　Answering　this　question　gets　students　to　self…
disclose　quickly。　After　you　have　gone　pletely　around　the　room　once；　go　around　the　room　again；　
having　the　students　answer　the　same　question。　You　will　find　that　each　time　you　go　around　the　
room；　students　self…disclose　more。　This　process　is　very　sensitive　to　your　initial　remarks；　and　you　can　
easily　direct　the　tone　of　students’　replies。　Go　around　the　room　as　many　times　as　practical。　This　
simple　activity　will　pay…off　by　creating　a　supportive；　friendly；　and　humane　environment　that　will　
last　for　the　entire　term。　
2。　As　each　student　speaks；　all　others　will　list　up　to　five　adjectives　that　they　think　are　probably
characteristic　of　this　person。
3。　For　three　students　chosen　arbitrarily；　list　on　the　chalkboard　the　adjectives　that　class　members　chose　
as　descriptive　of　each　person　in　question。　
4。　Ask　the　people　who　were　selected　whether　the　adjectives　that　the　class　members　chose　are　the　ones　
that　they　intended　to　generate。　
5　。　Ask　students　to　list　the　three　traits　they　each　think　are　most　characteristic　of　the　course　instructor。　
Pool　their　impressions　to　determine　the　frequency　of　each　trait　and　where　there　is　consensus　or　
disagreement。　Ask　students　for　behavioral　or　perceptual　evidence　they　used　to　infer　each　of　the　
traits　they　listed。　Ask　them　to　use　the　Impression　Formation　Tally　Forms　to　outline　their　
impressions。　
6。　Analyze　five　different　styles　of　self…presentation。　
GENERAL　INTRODUCTION　

In　social　encounters；　we　are　selective　in　what　we　tell　other　people　about　ourselves　and　in　what　we　look　for　
in　them。　We　engage　in　impression　management　by　giving　others　information　that　will　lead　them　to　form　
certain　conclusions　about　us。　We　also　engage　in　impression　formation　by　seeking　out　information　about　
others　in　ways　that　may　confirm　our　initial　impressions　about　them。　This　demonstration　examines　how　
people　manage　their　impressions　of　others　by　selectively　presenting　information　that　is　relevant　to　some　
goal…in　this　case；　getting　a　job。　It　also　explores　how　people　recruit　information　about　others　as　they　form　
impressions　about　them。　In　doing　this；　the　demonstration　provides　a　relatively　nonthreatening　means　for　

380　


students　to　bee　better　acquainted。　

SELF…PRESENTATION　STYLES　

Robert　Arkin　（Ohio　State　University）　improved　on　this　demonstration　by　adding　the　following　unit　on　
individual　styles　of　self…presentation。　See　the　taxonomy　chart　（from　a　research　article　by　Jones　and　Pittman；　
1982）　in　which；　for　each　of　four　types　of　self…presentation　styles；　there　are　four　columns　of　information：　a）　the　
emotion　that　the　actor　wants　to　arouse　（the　goal　of　the　interaction）；　b）　the　attributions　the　actor　seeks　to　elicit　
from　others　about　himself　or　herself；　c）　the　prototypical　actions　used　to　achieve　those　objectives；　and　d）　the　
risks　of　negative　attributions　being　made　instead　of　the　intended　one。　Read　the　chart　carefully　to　get　a　sense　
of　these　styles；　strategies；　and　consequences。　

1。　Begin　by　asking　the　class；　“Suppose　you　wanted　to　arouse　respect　in　someone　for　one　of　your　recent　
acplishments；　what　would　be　the　impression　you　would　want　to　create？”　（Refer　the　students　to　
their　charts。）　
2。　Then；　for　each　of　the　four　styles；　mention　the　emotion　to　be　elicited　and　have　the　students　infer　the　
appropriate　style。　
3。　Get　the　students　to　generate　the　attribution　sought　in　order　to　arouse　each　emotion。　
4。　Next；　have　the　students　give　specific　actions　that　would　produce　the　desired　emotion　（e。g。；　
“Casually　mention　to　your　date　that；　when　you　were　chatting　at　dinner　the　other　evening　at　your　
parents’　home　in　Monaco；　she/he　told　you　that”）。　This　is；　naturally；　the　fun　part。　The　examples　can　
be　wacky。　At　some　point；　work　in　the　name　of　the　style　（in　this　case；　self…promotion）。　In　addition；　the　
fact　that　one　risks　making　a　poor　impression　（negative　attributions　risked）　can　also　be　fun。　In　the　
example　above；　one　could　be　accused　of　being　a　name…dropper　or　a　place…dropper。　
5。　For　a　lively　discussion；　ask　if　there　are　any　sex　differences　in　the　use　of　these　styles。　You　should；　
however；　be　aware　of　sexist　stereotypes　and　use　them　to　advantage　as　part　of　the　psychology　of　
false　impression　formation。　
PITFALLS　TO　AVOID　

Because　this　is　the　first　research　section；　you　will　have　to　strike　a　difficult　balance　between　encouraging　
students　to　self…disclose　and　keeping　a　lively　pace　so　that　there　is　time　to　plete　the　demonstration。　

DISCUSSION；　EXTENSIONS；　AND　EXPERIMENTAL　VARIATIONS　

To　bring　the　impression　formation　idea　to　life；　you　can　use　the　following　exercise　to　good　effect。　First；　ask　
students　to　guess　the　basic　rules　of　impression　formation。　With　reference　to　a　job　interview；　for　instance；　ask　
what　would　be　a　mon　and　basic　rule　to　use　in　making　a　good　impression　on　the　interviewer　（or　anyone　
else　for　that　matter）。　Students　will　almost　certainly　cite　the　power　of　first　impressions；　i。e。；　“putting　your　best　
foot　forward。”　

The　following　experiment　illustrates　the　power　of　first　impressions。　Three　groups　of　subjects　participated。　
Each　group　learned　about　the　performance　of　an　individual　taking　a　test　of　intellectual　achievement　（say；　a　
test　of　analogies　or　anagrams）。　All　three　groups　learned　of　someone　who　got　approximately　15　of　30　fairly　
difficult　items　correct。　

381　


Taxonomy　of　Self…Presentation　Styles


Style　Emotion　to　Be　Positive　Attributions　Prototypical　Negative　Attributions　
Aroused　Sought　Actions　Risked　
Ingratiation　Affection　Likable　Self…
Characterization　
Opinion　Conformity　
Other　
Enhancement　
Favors　
Sycophant　
Conformist　
Obsequious　
Intimidation　Fear　Dangerous　
Ruthless　
Volatile　
Threats　
（incipient　）　
Anger　
（incipient）　
Breakdown　
Blusterer　
Wishy…Washy　
Ineffectual　
Self…
Promotion　
Respect　
Awe　
Deference　
petent　
Effective　
“A　Winner”　
Performance　
Claims　
Performance　
Accounts　
Performances　
Fraudulent　
Conceited　
Defensive　
Supplication　Nurturance　
（Obligation）　
Helpless　
Handicapped　
Unfortunate　
Self…Deprecation　
Entreaties　For　Help　
Stigmatized　
Lazy　
Demanding　

Note：　Student　Study　guide　omits　terms　within　each　cell　so　that　students　can　figure　them　out。　

From　Jones　&　Pittman；　1982　

But　the　three　groups　differed　in　one　crucial　way。　One　group　learned　of　someone　（whom　they　watched　on　
videotape）　who　did　well　on　the　first　half　of　the　items　（say；　about　10　of　15　correct）；　but　then　did　poorly　on　the　
second　half　（say；　only　5　of　15　correct）。　The　second　group　learned　of　someone　who　did　about　equally　well　
through　the　test　（say；　about　7　or　8　of　the　first　15　items　correct　and　about　7　or　8　of　the　next　15　correct）。　Finally；　
the　third　group　learned　about　someone　who　did　poorly　on　the　first　half　of　the　items　（say；　about　5　of　15　
correct）；　but　then　improved　considerably　on　the　second　half　（say；　about　10　of　15　correct）。　

One　group　judged　the　performer　much　brighter　than　the　other　groups。　Which　one？　

This　demonstration　raises　a　number　of　questions　and　issues　of　social　perception；　but　the　main　point　
illustrated　is　the　power　of　first　impressions。　The　group　that　judged　the　performer　brightest　was　the　
“descending　performance”　group。　That　is；　those　who　saw　a　brilliant　performance　to　begin　with　and　then　
saw　it　deteriorate　as　time　went　by。　Why？　

Seemingly；　perceivers　make　snap　judgments。　They　had　decided　how　smart　the　guy　was　by　the　fifth；　eighth；　
or　tenth　trial。　And；　even　when　they　saw　the　guy’s　performance　deteriorate；　they　were　unwilling　to　give　up　
their　original　attribution。　“Well；　he’s　bright；　so　he　must　have　gotten　bored；　or　stopped　trying　this　silly；　easy　
task；　or　something　。　。　。“　For　the　person　who　began　doing　poorly；　and　improved：　“He　is　clearly　a　bozo。　But　he　
must　have　gotten　the　message　and　really　started　trying。　Finally；　he　caught　on。　Clearly；　he’s　slow。”　

Again；　the　perceivers　were　unwilling　to　give　up　their　first　impression。　They　were　reduced　to　explaining　
away　the　contradictory　evidence　by　ing　up　with　ad　hoc　motivational　explanations　to　account　for　the　

382　


change　in　performance。　

In　short；　it　seems　that　all