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 the adages about “putting your best foot forward” are right。 Repairing the
damages of a first impression gone awry is one tough assignment。 （See Jones et al。； 1972； and Jellison &
Blanche； 1976。）
You might discuss research that shows how people who are randomly assigned to ask tough questions are
automatically perceived as more knowledgeable than those randomly assigned to answer them。 This
research suggests that people fail to discount adequately for the constraints that roles impose on behavior。
（See Ross； Amabile & Steinmetz； 1977。）
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Jellison； J。 M。； & Blanche； J。 G。 （1976）。 The Effects of Pattern of Performance and Order of Presentation on Recall
and Attribution of Ability。 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2； 47…50。
Jones； E。 E。； & Pittman； L。 （1982）。 Toward a prehensive Theory of Self…Presentation。 In J。 Suls （Ed。）； The Self in
Social Interaction （Vol。 1）。 Hillsdale； NJ： Erlbaum。
Ross； L。； Amabile； T。； & Steinmetz； J。 （1977）。 Social Rules； Social Control and Biases in the Social Perception
Process。 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology； 37； 485…494。
Schlenker； B。 R。 （1980）。 Impression Management。 The Self…Concept Social Identity and Interpersonal Relations。
Monterey； CA： Brooks/Cole。
Snyder； M。； & Swann； W。 B。； Jr。； （1978）。 When Actions Reflect Attitudes： The Politics of Impression Management。
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology； 36； 1202…1212。
383
COPING WITH THE ENVIRONMENT WHILE BEING
TEMPORARILY BLIND
This is a special out…of…class assignment that may be given for extra credit or used as the basis for class
discussion； at the instructor’s discretion。
OBJECTIVES
1。 To give students the opportunity of having the unique sensory…perceptual experience of not being
sighted for some period of time （several hours to one day）。
2。 To pare anticipated reactions of students with their actual experiences。
3。 To demonstrate the value of experiential learning。
OVERVIEW
We all wonder from time to time what life would be like or how we might be different if some sensory
attribute we value and rely on were suddenly changed： such as our hearing； sense of smell； taste； or feel； or
vision。 Here is a way for students to test the consequences of one such loss…temporary blindness。
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
One of the primary research strategies for studying the operation of psychological and physiological
processes involved in well…learned； highly practiced； or apparently inborn behaviors is to disrupt them。
Such behaviors； precisely because they usually function so well； are taken for granted and are therefore not
subjected to the scientific scrutiny and analysis they may deserve。 Investigation of the variables and
processes responsible for maintaining normal functioning often proceeds by creating conditions that
prevent； block； or modify the occurrence of the behavior pattern； subject it to unusual stress； or cause it to be
manifested in a deviant or abnormal f