Factors Influencing Accuracy of Interpersonal Perception

Factors Influencing Accuracy of loving PerceptionWhat actors squ are off the accuracy of social perceptionand the judgments we make near other people?Within the social environment, interpersonal perception is utilize frequently to make judgments about other people. The accuracy of these force out stick considerable bearing in a business context, affecting, for example, whether a helper is considered trustworthy or an individual motivated enough to warrant managerial training. These are clearly important decisions which could prove detrimental to an organisation if incorrect, to that extent for a number of reasons, assessments of other people whitethorn be quite a inaccurate. By recognising such risks, the organisation may be able to fracture strategies to help ensure more than effective decision- do and operations.Establishing the accuracy of social judgments is extremely complex and perhaps impossible (Pennington 1993 108). Most such assessments have a cultur all in ally situated element they are made in socio-cultural contexts that influence what might be correct. For example, Saucier and Goldberg (2001), who have carried out research in the applicability of personality testing in contrastive nations, find that terms employ to describe personality do not have equivalents in all languages, resulting in a need to recognise different personality frameworks from function to region.Various cognitive phenomena have been identified that may also agree accuracy. Stereotyping, for example, is identified by Huczynski and Buchanan (1991 48) as present in interpersonal perception, and involves attributing fussy qualities to an individual on the basis of limited information using forward knowledge and experience. The tendency to stereotype has been attributed to cognitive economy (Pennington 1993 115-6). Because the environment is so rich in information, the cognitive processing capabilities of the mind struggle to reply to it all. Stereotyping al lows a detailed assessment to be created from limited information processing, making fewer cognitive demands. However, because a large proportion of information is overlooked, stereotyping can lead to significant inaccuracies.The related concept of prejudice is described by Goleman as emotional learning that takes place early in manner (1996 157). Goleman notes that nevertheless, individuals typically deny prejudices and attempt to justify prejudiced decisions by formulating substitute reasons for them (ibid). This perhaps reflects the cognitive dissonance of wishing to appear reasonable indoors a context where prejudice is unacceptable while nevertheless holding such beliefs. This results in a situation where not only do prejudices lead to inaccurate assessments, but also the reasoning behind the assessments is itself inaccurate.The aboriginal attribution error (fuel-air explosive), described as the tendency to attribute some other persons behaviour to their dispositional qua lities rather than situational factors (Langdridge and butt end 2004 359), has been widely researched by psychologists working in the social cognitive tradition. In Western cultures, the fuel-air explosive is reflected by a scenario where a worker blames having to de-ice their car (a situational factor) in the beginning driving to work for their lateness, while their employer may see it as a reflection that the worker is slimyly organised (a dispositional factor). Again, cultural factors are potent it has been found that in the US, dispositional biases are widespread while in easternmost Asia a more holistic come is taken (Norenzayan and Nisbett 2000 132), resulting in the FAE being less commonly seen in eastern cultures (ibid).Huczynski and Buchanan (1991 48-9) suggest that if interpersonal judgments are to be more accurate, then it is important to be conscious and recognise ones own biases. However, even this process demands culturally-situated reflexiveness and may be subj ect to similar inaccuracies. For example, Seligman finds that the majority of individuals ove rest periodimate their social skills, with the most accurate self-perception being among those with depression (1990 109-110). This may suggest that a positively distorted view of oneself is advantageous to well-being, and that its abundance leads to poor rating of others because of individuals inability to recognise their own weakness of judgment.A further factor to consider is whether judgments are made by individuals or socially.Gleitman identifies the mechanism of social comparison as important in making judgments this involves establishing what others views might be in order to help form a judgment (1995 418). gathering dynamics were explored extensively by Tajfel, who notes several characteristics of stereotyping in group situations with, for example, office staff stereotypes are more often applied by groups to themselves (the in-group) while ethnic stereotypes are more often appl ied to out-groups, the groups which are not musical composition of the in-group (1982 5-6). Additionally, if one member of a group stands out from the others, the tendency of the rest of the members is to stereotype them more actively (ibid 8).The mechanisms by which judgments are made may contribute towards inconsistencies between individuals making them. Comparison is fundamental to assessment, according to Mussweiler (2003) who argues that this is make against a standard already established by the judge. Because of individual variations, different judges would be likely to use different standards, in the lead to different assessments. Comparison against low standards may lead to the halo effect, where an individual is seen more positively than might be warranted (Huczynski and Buchanan 1991 48).Another issue is the use of formalize models that may have limited flexibility and overcategorise. This is particularly relevant when applying suppositional constructs in the workplac e. For example, Maslows hierarchy of needs suggests that individuals move up through and through different levels of need as each lower level is quelled (Maslow 1943). It has been criticised for its implication that one need will take precedence (Hersey et al 1996 45), but it is possible that for some individuals, higher needs may be of little interest even when lower needs are satisfied.The contest emerging from the above evidence is to establish whether it is possible to minimise risks of poor judgment through conscious effort to overcome the cognitive mechanisms leading to biases. While it is possible that formal controls such as empirically-tested measures could help, there are still issues of the informal judgment of one individual when introduced to another, not to describe the practicalities and ethical issues regarding testing. Overall, this appears to be an area where inaccuracies and biases may always be important to some degree, thus awareness may be the best approach to preventing them having a detrimental effect on the organisation.BibliographyGleitman H (1995) Psychology fourth Edition (New York/London W W Norton and Company)Goleman D (1996) Emotional scholarship (London Bloomsbury)Hersey P, Blanchard K and Johnson D (1996) Management of organisational Behavior Utilizing Human Resources seventh Edition (New Jersey Prentice Hall International)Huczynski A and Buchanan D (1991) Organizational Behaviour 2nd Edition (Hertfordshire Prentice Hall International)Langdridge D and Butt T (2004) The fundamental attribution error A phenomenological critique in British Journal of Social Psychology Vol 43 pp357-369Maslow A (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation in psychological check Vol 50 pp370-96Mussweiler T (2003) Comparison Processes in Social Judgment Mechanisms and Consequences in Psychological Review Vol 110 (3) pp472-489Norenzayan A and Nisbett R (2000) Culture and Causal cognition in Current Directions in Psychological Science Vol 9 (4) pp132-135P ennington D (1993) Essential Social Psychology (London Edward Arnold)Saucier G and Goldberg L (2001) Lexical Studies of native Personality Factors Premises, Products and Prospects in Journal of Personality Vol 69 (6) pp847-879Seligman M (1990) learn Optimism (New York Simon and Schuster)Tajfel H (1982) Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations in Annual Review of Psychology Vol 33 pp1-39