ADVERTISEMENTS:
This article throws light upon the three main factors that influence formation of impression. The factors are: 1. Appearance 2. Physical Attractiveness 3. Cognitive and Learning Styles.
Factor # 1. Appearance:
Appearance is believed to be an important factor in forming an impression. Many among us try to put on a special appearance for occasions where we are likely to meet people who are influential, who have power, and can satisfy our needs and help us reach our goals. In fact, even at an institutional level this practice has been adopted. It is often found that people put on special clothes and an appearance to go to a religious place even though they are far from religious.
Thus we see that clothing is a factor which influences the formation of impression. When the author of this article was young, he used to think that every person wearing a khadi cap was a patriot. But wisdom dawned soon. It is possible that even today some innocent people carry similar impressions. Many of us perceive people carrying cell phones as very important people. The pity is this is what they want us to do.
Factor # 2. Physical Attractiveness:
There is a general tendency to attach everything good and desirable to people who are beautiful and attractive. To a large extent, there is agreement among people as to who is beautiful and who is not. Even from the level of preschool classes, in general, beautiful and attractive children are liked more both by teachers and even other children.
Dion in a study found that an act is perceived as less mischievous and naughty if the child in question is attractive. Dion, Berchild & Walster, and Cliffort & Walster found that in general even teachers rate physically attractive children as more intelligent, notwithstanding identical achievement records compared to some children who are not physically attractive.
In the case of adults also, impression formation about others is influenced by physical attractiveness. This was found by Walster & others. According to them, college students in picking their dates for a computer dance from photographs were mainly guided by physical attractiveness.
This emphasis on physical attractiveness is not in consonance with the usual claims of reader in personal discussions where they were eloquent and swear that they value qualities like intelligence, friendliness, sincerity, simplicity as observed by Vreland. On the other hand, Dion, Walster & Berschild found that college students rate physically attractive females as possessing desirable traits, thus showing the role of physical attractiveness in impression formation.
Yet in another study Berschild, Walster & Camburg found that physically attractive people who were rated very highly on desirable traits later on were found not to live up to the images conjured up of them when they were young. In many instances, in later life, they were found to be unhappy, maladjusted, and on the whole not leading a very wholesome life unlike what would have been expected of them if one were to make a prediction from the virtues attributed to them.
Evidence of this type goes against the assumption held by people that if certain traits are attributed to people they try to improve and live up to the predictions. Mckeachie in a study found that people tended to judge women wearing lipstick as more frivolous.
While physical appearance may be a factor in the formation of impressions, evidence shows that physical appearance alone cannot go too far in impression formation. Certainly there are other factors and also the factors of the length of contact of observations.
In another study, Argyle & Mchenry found that when photographs of people wearing glasses and not wearing glasses were exposed to subjects for a very short duration there was a tendency for the subjects to judge the former category to be more intelligent and smart.
But in another series of photographs which showed the same persons involved in discussions and arguments on some specific subjects, and also for a longer duration, the opinions changed. It appears therefore that the greater the amount of information and more varied the information which is available about a person, the impact of physical appearance, attractiveness, clothing etc. appears to follow the principle of diminishing returns.
Factor # 3. Cognitive and Learning Styles:
The reader is already familiar with the role of cognitive and learning processes in the development of behaviour. Social perception including person perception at any stage is influenced by the cognitive processes which include perceptual processes and the learning processes.
This is particularly true of adult social behaviour. It has been observed by psychologists that people, as they grow and develop, acquire characteristic and consistent modes of dealing with the stimuli in the environment, both social stimuli and non-social stimuli. Considerable research of such consistencies and individual differences has led to the development of the concept of style.
Even early in the history of psychology attempts were made to characterize people as global, analytic, integrative etc. In fact, such descriptions were part of the early attempts to classify people into different types. But while these early attempts were based on impressionistic descriptions, more recently considerable amount of empirical studies and analysis of individual differences in cognitive behaviour has led to the view that given the same stimulus situation people differ in the way they deal with them and assimilate them and that such ways can become generalized and consistent modes permitting very often even predictions of cognitive behaviour.
The term style has been used in a number of ways. In common sense use the term style is used to discuss superficial and visible characteristics of behaviour like style of talking, style of walking, style of smiling etc. But from the point of view of psychology, the implication of the term style goes much deeper.
It is used to describe not only superficial features but a whole lot of thoughts, processes and approaches, consistently employed by an individual, in transactions with reality. The apparent stylistic features stem from whole systems of basic perceptual and thought processes and in a way the overall basic approach a person employs to interact with reality.
According to Guild & Garger, style is concerned with cognition. People perceive and acquire knowledge in different ways. Style is also involved in the process of interpretation, organization and conceptualization of knowledge gained through the perceptual process. People form ideas and their thought processes work differently.
Style is also concerned with the affective processes; people have different affective reactions, feelings and emotions and ultimately values. Style influences the behaviour. It is but natural when perceptual, conceptual and affective processes get integrated into a stylistic type of organization, that behaviour should also show a stylistic characteristic.
One may go on listing other implications of style. But this may not be necessary. Suffice it to say that in many individuals, one finds persistent and consistent modes of organizing and reacting to experiences whether social or non-social irrespective of the actual contents of experience. In a way, one may describe the style as an integrated orientation including cognitive, affective and behavioural components.
The acquisition of a particular style by an individual is again influenced by socio-cultural factors, early childhood experiences and interactions, and even the formalized educative processes. Thus one often comes across the experience where social scientists look at a particular social problem in a manner different from philosophers and politicians. The artist differs from all these people. While these are extreme instances, it is nevertheless true that even ordinary people evolve their own styles.
One of the approaches to the study and understanding of the concept of style, is the phenomenological approach. According to Gregore, the phenomenological perspective on style offers the proposition that stylistic characteristics are powerful indicators of deep underlying psychological forces that help guide a person’s interactions with existential realities. It gives us a way, though limited, to gain knowledge about ourselves as complete, integrated, wholistic and meaning-seeking human beings. It also provides a means by which we can come to realise what impact we have and the other way.
Is it necessary to make a distinction between cognitive style and learning style? Opinion here seems to be divided. On the one hand some people are of the view that there is a difference between the learning process and the cognitive process.
On the other hand Siegel & Coop view learning style as an integrated concept that bridges the personality and the cognitive dimensions of the individuals. Gibson on the other hand argues that learning style and cognitive style are synonymous.
According to him learning styles are the ‘different ways in which people process information in the course of learning’. However, it may be stated that by virtue of its very intrinsic nature, the term ‘learning styles’ is a comprehensive part of a broader concept of ‘cognitive style’. From the point of view of social behaviour including social perception, however, which very often involves socially responding to complex and unstructured situation, the concept of cognitive styles appears to be more appropriate compared to the more limited concept of learning style which probably becomes more operative in a restricted and structured situation.
Whether learning style or cognitive style, the style of an individual is influenced by a number of factors, some developing and unfolding as a result of an individual’s experiences during the process of growth. Style while being relatively stable can however change over time and that too gradually. Maturation is an important factor.
According to Dunn cognitive or learning style is influenced by environmental factors, emotional factors, sociological factors, and physical factors. Some of the environmental factors which affect learning and cognitive styles at a given time are sound, light, temperature etc.
Some of the emotional factors include motivational conditions, tendency to persist, etc. The sociological factors that appear to affect learning or cognitive style are the type of people with whom one reacts in a cognitive situation, their basic social attitudes like reaction to an authority figure, the age stratification, social structure etc. Dunn mentions the factors like cognitive inclination, global analytic, impulsive, reflective etc.