Encoding Processes

1
Encoding Processes

• Encoding -- Initial input of information from
  social world information exists in external
  world, we process it.
• Sources of information
• Two components of encoding
• Attention
• Interpretation assigning basic meaning
• Both guided by cognitive structures
• Both happen very quickly automaticity?

2
Encoding

• Attention --
• Stimulus environment rich, complex
• more stimuli than we can consciously attend to at
  any given moment therefore attend to some but
  not all of those stimuli
• stimuli we attend to are processed, can guide
  later processing, outcomes information not
  attended to (not encoded) does not enter
  information processing sequence, cannot affect
  later processing, judgments, etc.
• Given stimulus overload, must select what to
  attend to selective attention
• Attention serves gate-keeping function

3
Encoding

• What factors influence attention?
• Immediate goals
• Cognitive structures, expectancies
• Processing consistent inconsistent info.
  (Cohen, 1981) Ps watched videotape of woman with
  husband woman waitress or librarian video
  showed features typical of both occupations
• DV memory for info on tape consis.
  inconsis. with occupation.
• Results memory ( correct)
• Time of Memory Test
• Features immed. 4 days 7 days
• consistent .88 .73 .73
• inconsistent .78 .68 .66

4
Encoding

• Encoding or retrieval? 2nd study when was
  occupation info. provided?
• Results -- correct
• features prior to tape after tape
• consistent .74 .68
• inconsistent .66 .57
• Thus better memory for expectancy consistent
  information effect persists over time due to
  effects at encoding, not retrieval.
• I wouldnt have seen it
• In Cohen, inconsistent didnt really violate
  expectancy what if info really contradicts
  expectancy? Honest person ? dishonest act? See
  White Carlston (1983), Rdng. 2 the cocktail
  party effect

5
Encoding

• Motives
• Need to belong effects on attention (Gardner et
  al., 2000) 2-part experiment
• 1st part computerized chat room 3 others
  (computerized) conditions
• Acceptance
• Social rejection
• 2nd part read diary of another person some
  events alone, other events with people later,
  recall diary material
• Prediction high belongingness need ? attentive
  to info. about social events, better recall for
  social than individual experiences
• Results supported predication

6
Encoding

• 4. Negative information
• Automatic vigilance Pratto John (1991), Rdng.
  15
• Stimulus salience -- ability of stimuli to
  capture attention (in given context) and
  therefore have a greater impact on our cognitive
  processing (McArthur Post, 1977)
• Ps watched a videotaped 2-person discussion
• One person made salient (e.g., under a light, in
  rocking chair, boldly patterned shirt)
• Actors behaved the same way in both conditions
• Ps rated their impressions of people in the
  discussion

7
Encoding

• Results salient person rated more influential in
  discussion
• 6. The role of context (Taylor Fiske, 1975)
• 6 Ps observed conversation between 2 people
  (confederates). Ps seated around Cs, different
  viewing angles.
• Viewing angle influences relative salience of Cs.

8
Participant
Confederate
9
Encoding

• Later rated Cs on perceived influence during
  conversation.
• Prediction salient C perceived as more
  influential.

10
Encoding
11
Encoding

• Interpretation --
• What do we do with that information?
• Information takes on meaning only when it has
  been interpreted
• an act of the perceiver
• What factors influence interpretation?
• Expectancies e.g., stereotypes Dunning
  Sherman (1997), Rdng. 3
• note what they call tacit inference is really
  interpretation
• Motives Hastorf Cantril, 1954 Rdng. 30

12
Encoding

• Must we process information extensively to gain
  meaning?
• Impressions from thin slices of nonverbal
  behavior (Ambady Rosenthal, 1993).
• Predicting teacher evaluations from videoclips
• Videotapes from classes, 13 faculty, 10 secs
  each
• Ratings of teachers from nonverbal behaviors
• Correlate ratings with end-of-term evaluations
• r .76

13
Encoding

• Thinning the slices
• Same procedure with 5-sec and 2-sec segments
• r (5-sec) .90 r (2-sec) .73
• Conclusions
• We encode information from nonverbal behavior
  very quickly
• That information may be correlated with other
  variables

14
Encoding

• Summary
• Encoding initial input of information from
  social world
• Two crucial elements of encoding
• Attention
• Selective
• Factors that influence attention
• Interpretation giving meaning to encoded
  information
• Guided by prior expectancies, cog. structures
• Expectancy confirmation process
• Can be based on minimal cues (thin slices)

15
Encoding

• The Self as influence on encoding process
• The self-reference effect (Rogers, Kuiper,
  Kirker, 1977)
• The nature of encoding task itself can differ.
  Rogers et al. -- self-reference is a particularly
  powerful encoding strategy.
• What do we mean by different encoding strategies?

16
Encoding

• Series of words
• funny
• lazy
• POPULAR
• intelligent
• HONEST
• Different forms of encoding
• Structural big letters?
• Phonemic rhymes with hazy? rude?
• Semantic means same as smart? pushy?
• Self-reference describes you?

17
Encoding

• Ss presented 40 trait adjectives, responded
  yes/no to each on one of the 4 cue questions.
  Later -- recall words.
• If encoding task influences processing and
  representation of information, it should
  facilitate later recall.

18
Encoding

• Recall performance -- results
• Encoding task Recall
• Structural .34
• Phonemic .68
• Semantic 1.33
• Self-reference 2.84

19
Encoding

• Why?
• Two possibilities
• Organization. Self is a cognitive structure.
  Provides organized framework for comprehending
  and storing information. Organization
  facilitates recall.
• Elaboration. Like any cognitive structure, self
  is storehouse of self-knowledge. Permits
  inferences, linking item with other
  self-descriptive attributes. Those associates
  provide cues for retrieval.
• Research shows that both mechanisms occur in
  self-reference effect.

20
Encoding

• Person perception and encoding
• Whats in a face?
• Face conveys lots of information.
• Group memberships (gender, race, age)
• Attractiveness, affect
• Guides to impressions
• Infer traits from faces?

21
Encoding

• First impressions can face convey competence?
  trustworthiness?
• Snap judgments fast impressions (Willis
  Todorov, 2006)
• Preliminary Ss given face photos, rated how
  attractive, likeable, trustworthy, competent
  criterion judgments for later phase
• Experiment Photos presented for 100, 500, or
  1000 ms
• Is this person competent? Yes/no.
• Do these judgments correlate with those made
  without time constraints?

22
Encoding

• Correlations betw.Time-constrained and
  Unconstrained Judgments
• Exposure Time
• Trait 100 500 1000
• Attractive .69 .57 .66
• Likeable .59 .57 .63
• Competent .52 .67 .59
• Trustworthy .73 .66 .74

23
Encoding

• Do face-based impressions have consequences?
  Answer Yes.
• Voting? (Todorov et al., 2005)
• Can inferences of competence from faces influence
  voting decisions?
• Ps given photos of congressional opponents
  (pairs), rate competence of each candidate
• How often did candidate rated higher win?
• House 66.8
• Senate 71.6

24
Encoding

• How fast?
• Another study each pair of faces presented for
  1 sec, then rate each candidate
• Average response time 1 sec these are rapid
  judgments
• How often did candidate rated more competent win?
  
• Senate 67.6
• So people can pick up (encode) trait-relevant
  information from faces quickly, and it predicts
  outcomes.

25
Encoding

• Criminality?
• Stereotypicality of black faces
• Not all blacks look alike
• Facial features stereotypic of blacks (skin tone,
  nose width, thickness of lips)
• Afrocentric features ? stereotyping (Blair et
  al., 2002)
• Ps rated faces that varied in Afrocentric
  features
• More Afrocentric facial features ? more
  perception of stereotypic attributes (lazy,
  athletic)
• The effect is independent of racial category

26
Encoding

• Stereotypic black faces -- more criminal?
  (Eberhardt et al., 2004)
• Police officers shown photos of white and black
  male faces rated for (a) how stereotypically
  black or white? and (b) does person look
  criminal?
• Results
• perceived criminality
• stereotypicality white faces black faces
• high 8.80 12.95
• low 10.50 10.83

27
Encoding

• Does it make a difference?
• looking deathworthy (Eberhardt et al., 2006)
• Race matters in capital punishment.
• Race of victim
• Race of defendant
• Ps shown photos of black male defendants
  convicted of murder.
• Black victim, white victim
• Ps rated stereotypicality of face.
• Question were defendants with Afrocentric
  features more likely to receive death sentence?

28
Encoding

• Stereotypicality of Face
• Victim High Low
• Black 45.0 46.6
• White 57.5 24.4

29
Encoding

• Stereotypes and encoding process
• Stereotypes cognitive structures contain
  expectancies can influence attention,
  interpretation.
• Earlier -- how cognitive structures influence
  encoding (both attention interpretation)
• Dunning Sherman occupational stereotypes
  influence interpretation of ambiguous behaviors
• Racial stereotypes prime race, effects on
  interpretation of behavior

30
Encoding

• Could it work the other way? Question what race
  is that person?
• Can stereotypes influence the actual perception
  of persons race? (Hugenberg Bodenhausen,
  2004).
• Method
• Presented racially-ambiguous faces
  (computer-generated, through morphing)
• Manipulated facial expression of faces
• Happy
• Angry
• Ss task categorize person as Caucasian or
  African- American
• Also measured Ss prejudice level

31
Encoding

• Hypotheses
• Facial expressions stereotypic of a group will be
  used as cues for assigning target person to
  racial category
• Angry African-American
• Happy -- Caucasian
• Prejudice level will influence this effect
• High prejudice persons more likely to use
  stereotypic information (e.g., stereotypic nature
  of facial expression)

32
(No Transcript)
33
Encoding
34
Encoding