A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange.

Patterson, Miles L.

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.3.231

Cited by 219 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, unfocused interactions are less likely to engage behavior monitoring and management. In contrast, as situational constraints increase, individuals are more likely to behave consistently with social norms (Hebl & Dovidio, 2005;Patterson, 1982). For example, we are usually more careful in our self-presentation when meeting and talking with an outgroup member for the first time than in simply passing the same person on the sidewalk.…”

Section: Why Study Unfocused Interactions?mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…129-130). On the other hand, if the close presence of strangers is uncomfortable, individuals may avert gaze and reorient themselves to reestablish comfort and a sense of control (Patterson, 1982). Gazing at another person in these situations of shared presence is important because it indicates a change in attention and may open the door for a response (Ellsworth & Langer, 1976).…”

Section: Unfocused Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Back to Social Behavior: Mining the Mundane

Patterson

2008

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the declining attention to behavioral research in personality and social psychology and proposes an alternative to the typical laboratory paradigm for studying social behavior. Specifically, the study of ''unfocused interactions,'' that is, situations where people simply share a common presence without talking to one another (Goffman, 1963), provides an opportunity for analyzing mundane behavior in everyday microinteractions. Because unfocused interactions are ubiquitous, may serve to prime subsequent behavior, and are likely to reflect implicit attitudes and judgments, they are well suited for studying the practical link between social cognition and everyday social behavior. Examples of research on unfocused interactions are described, and their utility in studying interpersonal processes is discussed.Over the last few decades, the social cognition perspective has been dominant in social psychology. During this time, interpersonal processes have been studied primarily through a cognitive lens. Thus, most social psychological research focuses on people's judgments of others; self-reports of attitudes, thoughts, and feelings; and evaluations of hypothetical situations or scenarios. Of course, the study of the cognitive processes involved in the judgment of the self and others is important in and of itself. Nevertheless, one might also argue that the ultimate utility of such research is the understanding of social behavior. In fact, this was recognized over a century ago in William James's (1983=1890) observation that ''thinking is for doing '' (pp. 959-960). In more recent years, there was also a renewed appreciation of the pragmatic nature of social judgments. That is, social cognitions and judgments are goal directed and adaptive in shaping subsequent behavior (Bargh, 1997;Fiske, 1992;Swann, 1984). Consistent with this view, the ecological theory of social perception stressed the behavioral utility present in making affordance judgments of others (McArthur & Baron, 1983;Zebrowitz & Collins, 1997). That is, our most basic social judgments are adaptive in focusing on how we can effectively relate to others.In spite of the widespread recognition of the behavioral relevance of social judgments, the vast majority of research in social psychology measures only social cognitions and judgments and not social behavior. Years ago, in describing their paradigm for studying interactive behavior, Ickes, Bissonnette, Garcia, and Stinson (1990) lamented the dominance of pencil marks on self-report measures as the ''behavior'' of choice in most published research. Since that time, we can probably add computer keystrokes to the list of preferred measures. More recently, Hebl and Dovidio (2005) criticized the minimal investment in behavioral studies of social stigma. In a similar fashion, Furr and Funder (2007) noted that there is little research in personality psychology examining how personality characteristics affect actual social behavior.In this article, I take a closer look at the declining interest i...

show abstract

Section: Why Study Unfocused Interactions?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Unfocused Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back to Social Behavior: Mining the Mundane

Patterson

2008

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Perlman ve Cozby, saldırganlığın, kişinin başkalarına zarar verme isteği olduğunu; Gergen ise saldırganlığın sadece davranışsal bir öğe olmadığını buna öfkenin, düşmanlık gibi çeşitli duygusal öğelerin eşlik ettiğini belirtmişlerdir. 15,16 Pasif-agresif kişilik bozukluğu tanı ölçütleri şunlardır: 6  Rutin, sosyal ve mesleki tasarıları tam karşılamaya pasif direnç gösterme,  Başkaları tarafından takdir edilmemekten ve yanlış anlaşılmaktan yakınma,  Asık yüzlü ve tartışmacı olma,  Otoriteyi küçük görme ve eleştirileri mantıksız bulma,  Görünüşte daha şanslı olmaya yönelik kıskançlık ve gücenme gösterme,  Kişisel şanssızlıktan devamlı yakınma ve abartılı olarak dile getirme,  Pişmanlık duyma ve düşmanca meydan okuma arasında değişiklik gösterme.…”

Section: Saldırganlıkunclassified

Passivity, Assertiveness and Aggression Scale-PAAS: Study of Reliability and Validity

Duyan¹,

Gelbal²

2016

TJFMPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Passivity, assertiveness and aggression are the patterns of communication that people use to express their emotions and thoughts. In this respect, a need for a valid and reliable assessment tool for these three communication patterns has arisen. In order to meet this need, our study seeks to assess validity and reliability of PAAI (Personal Assertion Analysis Inventory), which was developed by Hedlund ve Lindqvist (1984) Methods: This study is conducted with 328 university students with an average age of 21,03 (SS=2,14). For the language reliability of the scale, professional translation, reverse translation and consistency of these translations are examined. For the reliability, test, re-test and Cronbach Alpha coefficient is calculated, which indicates the internal validity of the scale items. The total test points and correlations power index is declared acceptable at 0,20 and above. After calculating the reliability and item selectivity of each dimension, confirmatory factor analysis is conducted for validity. Results: There are 10 items for each sub-category within the original scale. Among the model-data consistency indicators, CFI (0.91), NFI (0.81), AGFI (0.87) values are calculated in the confirmatory factor analysis. Moreover, the consistency index IFI, which indicates the probability of SRMR value independently of the sample, is calculated as 0.91. In addition, the 90% contingent confidence interval of RMSEA value is calculated as 0.042-0.053. Finally, it is found out that SRMR value (0.053), which indicates the consistency of the model's standardized error, is acceptable. Conclusion: The findings of the study show that the PAAI is composed of 3 dimensions: passivity, assertiveness and aggression and the results are valid and reliable.

show abstract

“…These patterns of association could help understand the influence of context on social signals and cues, but also the inter-dependency between different individuals' behavioural streams (Gardner and Griffin 1989) or people's adaptation to their interactive partner (Cappella 1996). These patterns of association can then be used to model the outcome of an interaction (Carrere and Gottman 1999;Patterson 1982). The output of the third step includes inferences about psychobiological characteristics of the signaller, the probability that individuals will engage in a particular behaviour, and an estimation of the outcome of the social interaction in terms of individual and collective benefits.…”

Section: Multimodal Signalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A psycho-ethological approach to social signal processing

Méhu

Scherer

2012

Cogn Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emerging field of social signal processing can benefit from a theoretical framework to guide future research activities. The present article aims at drawing attention to two areas of research that devoted considerable efforts to the understanding of social behaviour: ethology and social psychology. With a long tradition in the study of animal signals, ethology and evolutionary biology have developed theoretical concepts to account for the functional significance of signalling. For example, the consideration of divergent selective pressures responsible for the evolution of signalling and social cognition emphasized the importance of two classes of indicators: informative cues and communicative signals. Social psychology, on the other hand, investigates emotional expression and interpersonal relationships, with a focus on the mechanisms underlying the production and interpretation of social signals and cues. Based on the theoretical considerations developed in these two fields, we propose a model that integrates the processing of perceivable individual features (social signals and cues) with contextual information, and we suggest that output of computer-based processing systems should be derived in terms of functional significance rather than in terms of absolute conceptual meaning.

show abstract

A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange.

Cited by 219 publications

References 59 publications

Back to Social Behavior: Mining the Mundane

Back to Social Behavior: Mining the Mundane

Passivity, Assertiveness and Aggression Scale-PAAS: Study of Reliability and Validity

A psycho-ethological approach to social signal processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About