Perception and Perception-Checking

How shall I talk of the sea to the frog, if he has never left the pond? How shall I talk of the frost to the bird of the summer land if he has never left the place of his birth? And how shall I talk of life with the sage if he is a prisoner of his doctrine?  ~ Chung Tzu

Chapter Overview

1. Section One examines the critical concept of perception, explaining the three steps involved in creating a perception: selection, organization, and interpretation.
2. Section Two looks at how culture impacts our perception of others.
3. Section Three explores how the communication skill of a “perception check” can assist one in an intercultural environment.

*Attribution: This Chapter is attributed to Communication in the Real World, Ch. 2.

Section One – What is Perception?

Defining Perception

In Intercultural Communication, perception,  along with the associated skills of perception-checking (often stressed in Interpersonal Communication), is necessary for the intercultural communication process  perception . Perception is more of a process whereby each of us creates “mental images” of the world that surrounds us, that is, of the “world out there” (Green, Fairchild, Knudsen, & Lease-Gubrud, 2018).

Moreover, Green, Fairchild, Knudsen, & Lease-Gubrud (2018) explain:

Perceptions determine communication choices, so understanding this process helps us to avoid common perceptual problems.  We gain greater insight into how there can be multiple, equally valid perceptions of the same stimuli, increasing our ability to respect a range of diverse views. A significant implication of this understanding is it reveals how much responsibility we receiver-based communicators have in the success or failure of an event.  We have to be responsible for those perceptions (Module II, Section 1).

The nature of communication evidences the importance of perception as a concept. Communication, recalling Professor Tucker’s three questions (Who am I, Who are you, and What are we doing here together?), may be understood as an intentional relationship between the Self and the Other. Fundamentally, then, the perception of one’s Self and the Other, and vice-versa, inform the nature and character of the communication which establishes, forms, and furthers (or, unfortunately, perhaps may fail to do so) the relationship between the two.

Perception and Barriers to Communication:

Perception, according to De Fleur, Kearney, and Plax (1993), is “seeing, hearing, or feeling something (with the senses) and then identifying what it is within the interpretations learned from one’s language and culture” (p.19). According to Gamble and Gamble’s definition (1996), “Perception is the process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sense data in a way that enables people to make sense of our world.” (p. 77). Culture shapes Individual perceptions and and hence   intercultural communication; that is, culturally ingrained and instilled attitudes, beliefs, values, media, worldview, and language shape perception (Samovar, Porter, McDaniel, & Roy, 2017). For De Fleur, Kearney, and Plax (1993), perception is using one’s senses, i.e., “seeing, hearing, or feeling something and then identifying what it is within the interpretations learned from one’s language and culture” (p. 19). From these definitions, one can see that environment, or culture, profoundly affects how one organizes perception. Humans sense and perceive the world in ways unique to their culture. Perceptions, then, may differ significantly between cultures. Western cultures, by in large, promote individualism — the individual controls their own life. Further, society and culture encourage individualism, individuals as discrete from their environment and the rights of individuals. Eastern cultures, on the other hand, are more collective. In Eastern cultures, one’s perception and behavior are focused on and emerge from the collective, e.g., a family, a village, and a nation. Intercultural formed behaviors, mindsets, and worldviews exist to further harmony.

Perception, or misperception, raises barriers to intercultural communication. These misperceptions cause barriers to successful intercultural communication. There are several reasons for intercultural communication apprehension (Cavanaugh, 2015). Heightened sensitivity or intense fear and anxiety when communicating with the Other of another culture, or communication apprehension, poses a significant barrier to accurately understanding another and may prevent the beginning and continuing process of intercultural communication/interviewing competence (Communication, 2016).

First, remember that communication apprehension is quite natural, especially if neither person trying to engage has substantial knowledge of the other’s culture. Thus, one barrier to intercultural communication occurs when one perceives their culturally ingrained attitudes, beliefs, values, worldview, and language as superior to the Other’s culture, that is, ethnocentrism. At the outset, ethnocentrism breeds fear, anxiety, and misunderstanding leading to extreme communication apprehension, which poses a barrier to intercultural communication. For example, Americans (more talkative as a rule) view silence as a negative characteristic of other cultures when communicating. Americans often interpret silence as disinterestedness, unwillingness to communicate, or a personal dislike. Asian cultures, however, perceive silence differently. Silence is considered a virtue. In Eastern cultures, perceptions often emerge from Taoist sayings and principles —  “In much talk, there is great weariness;” and “One who speaks does not know, one who knows does not speak” (Adler and Proctor III, p. 116). Unlike most Americans, they are comfortable with silence. These two perceptions of silence in two cultures may cause apprehension, frustration, mistrust, and an ethnocentric view. If apprehension is not addressed early, intercultural communication incompetence occurs.

Second, given the profound differences characterizing various cultures, heightened sensitivity or apprehension on the part of one or both of the intercultural participants in the dialogue, whatever their intercultural source, can arise and pose some difficulties. For example, some introverted individuals are, by nature, less comfortable and have difficulty communicating with others of their own culture, much less those of other very different cultures (Communicataion, 2016). Introverts often approach a self-other situation, intercultural or otherwise, with a need to process their feelings and thoughts to be prepared before moving into any intercultural conversation or experience. Extroverts, on the other hand, may very well have moved on or prematurely jumped in before thinking through the situation’s complexities. As always, the middle ground of an equal measure of thought and action is helpful.

Third, for many, especially those who have grown up without any contact or experience with people of a different culture, initial encounters with people of different cultures may be anxiety-producing. Such persons experience culturally ingrained and misguided perceptions of unknown cultures (Cavanauagh, 2015). It is crucial, then, as  Green, Fairchild, Knudsen, & Lease-Gubrud (2018) point out, that there is a responsibility involved: to “…gain greater insight into how there can be multiple, equally valid perceptions of the same stimuli, increasing our ability to respect a range of diverse views” (Module 2, Section 2).

Finally, in the interview process between those of different cultures, some students worry about sounding like a “therapist” or “salesperson” of their culture. Others fear that they might be too dependent upon stereotypes stereotypes in understanding the world.

Gudykunst and Kim (1995) provide an insight aptly summarized by Glaser (n.d.):

The increased uncertainty in interactions with strangers is accompanied by higher levels of anxiety, as we anticipate a wider array of possible negative outcomes. We may worry about damage to our self-esteem from feeling confused and out of control. We may fear the possibility of being incompetent, or being exploited. We may worry about being perceived negatively by the stranger. And we may worry that interacting with a stranger will bring disapproval from members of our own group. Generally these anxieties can be reduced by paying more conscious attention to the communication process, and by gathering more information on the stranger. The authors add a further caution. Generally, individuals tend to explain their own behavior by reference to the situation. Observers tend to attribute an individual’s behavior to elements of that individual’s character. When interacting with strangers we are especially likely to attribute their behavior to their character, and then to view their character as typical of their culture (or race, etc.). That is, we are especially likely to interpret a stranger’s behavior in light of our stereotypes about what ‘those kind of people’ are like (Glaser, n.d.).

Selection, Organization, and Interpretation

Neuliep (2018) defines perception itself as the “mental interpretation of external stimuli via sensation” (the accumulating of external stimuli through visual, auditory, olfactic, taste, and tactile senses). Human Perception, as a process, consists of a three-step process. Culture dramatically influences each perception step (Jandt, 2013, p. 62).

The first stage of perception must be the selection of sense data or the “raw information,” perceived and taken in by the senses (p. 157). As Mclean (2018) explains:

…[W]hat we perceive is culturally bount  We are taught from a very young age what to pay attention to and what to ignore. We learn what is important in our culture and look for those clues to make meaning. We often ignore clues that we’ve learned are considered unimportant. Sometimes we miss valuable clues that are right under our noses. Learning to recognize that we perceive stimuli in different ways helps us start to address this central question: Why don’t we all see things the same way? Understanding ourselves is fundamental to understanding others and thus intercultural communication (Section 2.2).

Now, as Samovar, Porter, McDaniel, & Roy (2017) point out, we humans live in “an information-saturated world [or culture].” [We are]…constantly inundated by physical and psychological factors that, due to sheer number, we cannot select and process. Scholars in the Intercultural Communication field usually posit some steps, perceptual filters, consisting of a three-step process– selection, organization, and interpretation –to help order stimuli (Jandt, 2013). Keep in mind, during the first step of selection, the individual communicator chooses consciously or unconsciously which stimuli to pay attention to and which to ignore. In the second step, the selected stimuli must be organized, after which, in the third step, our interpretation assigns meaning to perceived sense data (Samovar, Porter, McDaniel, & Roy, 2017).

Selection:

Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies (2016) expands upon how selection works:

We take in information through all five of our senses, but our perceptual field (the world around us) includes so many stimuli that it is impossible for our brains to process and make sense of it all. So, as information comes in through our senses, various factors influence what actually continues on through the perception process (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).  Selecting is the first part of the perception process, in which we focus our attention on certain incoming sensory information. Think about how, out of many other possible stimuli to pay attention to, you may hear a familiar voice in the hallway, see a pair of shoes you want to buy from across the mall, or smell something cooking for dinner when you get home from work. We quickly cut through and push to the background all kinds of sights, smells, sounds, and other stimuli, but how do we decide what to select and what to leave out?

We tend to pay attention to information that is salient. Salience is the degree to which something attracts our attention in a particular context. The thing attracting our attention can be abstract, like a concept, or concrete, like an object. For example, a person’s identity as a Native American may become salient when they are protesting at the Columbus Day parade in Denver, Colorado. Or a bright flashlight shining in your face while camping at night is sure to be salient. The degree of salience depends on three features (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). We tend to find salient things that are visually or aurally stimulating and things that meet our needs or interests. Lastly, expectations affect what we find salient.

Visual and Aural Stimulation

It is probably not surprising to learn that visually and/or aurally stimulating things become salient in selection of the perceptual field and get our attention. Creatures ranging from fish to hummingbirds are attracted to things like silver spinners on fishing poles or red and yellow bird feeders. Having our senses stimulated isn’t always a positive thing though. Think about the couple that won’t stop talking during the movie or the upstairs neighbor whose subwoofer shakes your ceiling at night. In short, stimuli can be attention-getting in a productive or distracting way. As communicators, we can use this knowledge to our benefit by minimizing distractions when we have something important to say. It’s probably better to have a serious conversation with a significant other in a quiet place rather than a crowded food court… [A]ltering the rate, volume, and pitch of your voice, known as vocal variety, can help keep your audience engaged, as can gestures and movement. Conversely, nonverbal adaptors, or nervous movements we do to relieve anxiety like pacing or twirling our hair, can be distracting. Aside from minimizing distractions and delivering our messages enthusiastically, the content of our communication also affects salience.

[Consider the cultural differences in what it means to go to a dance. How loud is the music? What is the music played? How do you dance? How close do you dance? When do things get started vs. wind down? The responses to these questions will vary. Asking your neighbor to turn the music down might be preceived differently due to the “norm” of that culture].

Needs and Interests

We tend to pay attention to information that we perceive to meet our needs or interests in some way. For example, If you’re engrossed in an interesting video game, you may not notice other perceptual cues.

This type of selective attention can help us meet instrumental needs and get things done. When you need to speak with a financial aid officer about your scholarships and loans, you sit in the waiting room and listen for your name to be called. Paying close attention to whose name is called means you can be ready to start your meeting and hopefully get your business handled. When we don’t think certain messages meet our needs, stimuli that would normally get our attention may be completely lost. Imagine you are in the grocery store and you hear someone say your name. You turn around, only to hear that person say, “Finally! I said your name three times. I thought you forgot who I was!” A few seconds before, when you were focused on figuring out which kind of orange juice to get, you were attending to the various pulp options to the point that you tuned other stimuli out, even something as familiar as the sound of someone calling your name. Again, as communicators, especially in persuasive contexts, we can use this to our advantage by making it clear how our message or proposition meets the needs of our audience members. Whether a sign helps us find  us find the nearest gas station, the sound of a ringtone helps us find our missing cell phone, or a speaker tells us how avoiding processed foods will improve our health, we select and attend to information that meets our needs.

We also find salient information that interests us. Of course, many times, stimuli that meet our needs are also interesting, but it’s worth discussing these two items separately because sometimes we find things interesting that don’t necessarily meet our needs. I’m sure we’ve all gotten sucked into a television show, video game, or random project and paid attention to that at the expense of something that actually meets our needs like cleaning or spending time with a significant other. Paying attention to things that interest us but don’t meet specific needs seems like the basic formula for procrastination that we are all familiar with.

In many cases we know what interests us and we automatically gravitate toward stimuli that match up with that. For example, as you filter through radio stations, you likely already have an idea of what kind of music interests you and will stop on a station playing something in that genre while skipping right past stations playing something you aren’t interested in. Because of this tendency, we often have to end up being forced into or accidentally experiencing something new in order to create or discover new interests. For example, you may not realize you are interested in Asian history until you are required to take such a course and have an engaging professor who sparks that interest in you. Or you may accidentally stumble on a new area of interest when you take a class you wouldn’t otherwise because it fits into your schedule. As communicators, you can take advantage of this perceptual tendency by adapting your topic and content to the interests of your audience,

Expectations

The relationship between salience and expectations is a little more complex. Basically, we can find expected things salient and find things that are unexpected salient. While this may sound confusing, a couple examples should illustrate this point. If you are expecting a package to be delivered, you might pick up on the slightest noise of a truck engine or someone’s footsteps approaching your front door. Since we expect something to happen, we may be extra tuned in to clues that it is coming. In terms of the unexpected, if you have a shy and soft-spoken friend who you overhear raising the volume and pitch of his voice while talking to another friend, you may pick up on that and assume that something out of the ordinary is going on. For something unexpected to become salient, it has to reach a certain threshold of difference. If you walked into your regular class and there were one or two more students there than normal, you may not even notice. If you walked into your class and there was someone dressed up as a wizard, you would probably notice. So, if we expect to experience something out of the routine, like a package delivery, we will find stimuli related to that expectation salient. If we experience something that we weren’t expecting and that is significantly different from our routine experiences, then we will likely find it salient. We can also apply this concept to our communication. I always encourage my students to include supporting material in their speeches that defies our expectations. You can help keep your audience engaged by employing good research skills to find such information.

There is a middle area where slight deviations from routine experiences may go unnoticed because we aren’t expecting them. To go back to the earlier example, if you aren’t expecting a package, and you regularly hear vehicle engines and sidewalk foot traffic outside your house, those pretty routine sounds wouldn’t be as likely to catch your attention, even if it were slightly more or less traffic than expected. This is because our expectations are often based on previous experience and patterns we have observed and internalized, which allows our brains to go on “autopilot” sometimes and fill in things that are missing or overlook extra things. Look at the following sentence and read it aloud: Percption is based on patterns, maening we otfen raech a conclusion without considering each indvidual elment. This example illustrates a test of our expectations and an annoyance to every college student. We have all had the experience of getting a paper back with typos and spelling errors circled. This can be frustrating, especially if we actually took the time to proofread. When we first learned to read and write, we learned letter by letter. A teacher or parent would show us a card with A-P-P-L-E written on it, and we would sound it out. Over time, we learned the patterns of letters and sounds and could see combinations of letters and pronounce the word quickly. Since we know what to expect when we see a certain pattern of letters, and know what comes next in a sentence since we wrote the paper, we don’t take the time to look at each letter as we proofread. This can lead us to overlook common typos and spelling errors, even if we proofread something multiple times. As a side note, I’ll share two tips to help you avoid proofreading errors: First, have a friend proofread your paper. Since they didn’t write it, they have fewer expectations regarding the content. Second, read your papers backward. Since patterns of speech aren’t the same in reverse you have to stop and focus on each word. Now that we know how we select stimuli, let’s turn our attention to how we organize the information we receive (Communication in the Real World, 2016).

Organization:

Again, drawing in part from the Open Education Resource (OER), Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies (2016), note that the second step of perception — organization — is also complex:

 

Organizing is the second part of the perception process, in which we must sort and categorize information that we perceive based on innate and learned cognitive patterns. Again, these innate and learned cognitive patterns are set or influenced by culture. Three ways we organize things into patterns are by using proximity, similarity, and difference (Coren, 1980).

Proximity

In terms of proximity, we tend to think that things that are close together or go together. For example, have you ever been waiting to be helped in a business and the clerk assumes that you and the person standing beside you are together? The slightly awkward moment usually ends when you and the other person in line look at each other, then back at the clerk, and one of you explains that you are not together. Even though you may have never met that other person in your life, the clerk used a basic perceptual organizing cue to group you together because you were standing in proximity to one another. Since we organize perceptual information based on proximity, a person may perceive that two people are together, just because they are standing close together in line.

Similarity

We also group things together based on similarity. We tend to think similar-looking or similar-acting things belong together. I have two friends that I occasionally go out with, and we are all three males, around the same age, of the same race, with short hair and glasses. Aside from that, we don’t really look alike, but on more than one occasion a server at a restaurant has assumed that we’re brothers. Despite the fact that many of our other features are different, the salient features are organized based on similarity and the three of us are suddenly related.

Difference

We also organize information that we take in based on difference. In this case, we assume that the item that looks or acts different from the rest doesn’t belong with the group. Perceptual errors involving people and assumptions  of difference can be especially awkward, if not offensive. My friend’s mother, who is Vietnamese American, was attending a conference at which another attendee assumed she was a hotel worker and asked her to throw something away for her. In this case, my friend’s mother was a person of color at a convention with mostly white attendees, so an impression was formed based on the other person’s perception of this difference.

These strategies for organizing information are so common that they are built into how we teach our children basic skills and how we function in our daily lives. I’m sure we all had to look at pictures in grade school and determine which things went together and which thing didn’t belong. If you think of the literal act of organizing something, like your desk at home or work, we follow these same strategies. If you have a bunch of papers and mail on the top of your desk, you will likely sort papers into separate piles for separate classes or put bills in a separate place than personal mail. You may have one drawer for pens, pencils, and other supplies and another drawer for files. In this case you are grouping items based on similarities and differences. You may also group things based on proximity, for example, by putting financial items like your checkbook, a calculator, and your pay stubs in one area so you can update your budget efficiently. In summary, we simplify information and look for patterns to help us more efficiently communicate and get through life.

Simplification and categorizing based on patterns isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, without this capability we would likely not have the ability to speak, read, or engage in other complex cognitive/behavioral functions. Our brain innately categorizes and files information and experiences away for later retrieval, and different parts of the brain are responsible for different sensory experiences. In short, it is natural for things to group together in some ways. There are differences among people, and looking for patterns helps us in many practical ways. However, the judgments we place on various patterns and categories are not natural; they are learned and culturally and contextually relative. Our perceptual patterns do become unproductive and even unethical when the judgments we associate with certain patterns are based on stereotypical or prejudicial thinking.

We also organize interactions and interpersonal experiences based on our firsthand experiences. When two people experience the same encounter differently, misunderstandings and conflict may result. Punctuation refers to the structuring of information into a timeline to determine the cause (stimulus) and effect (response) of our communication interactions (Sillars, 1980). Applying this concept to interpersonal conflict can help us see how the perception process extends beyond the individual to the interpersonal level. This concept also helps illustrate how organization and interpretation can happen together and how interpretation can influence how we organize information and vice versa.

Where does a conflict begin and end? The answer to this question depends on how the people involved in the conflict punctuate, or structure, their conflict experience. Punctuation differences can often escalate conflict, which can lead to a variety of relationship problems (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). For example, Linda and Joe are on a project team at work and have a deadline approaching. Linda has been working on the project over the weekend in anticipation of her meeting with Joe first thing Monday morning. She has had some questions along the way and has e-mailed Joe for clarification and input, but he hasn’t responded. On Monday morning, Linda walks into the meeting room, sees Joe, and says, “I’ve been working on this project all weekend and needed your help. I e-mailed you three times! What were you doing?” Joe responds, “I had no idea you e-mailed me. I was gone all weekend on a camping trip.” In this instance, the conflict started for Linda two days ago and has just started for Joe. So, for the two of them to most effectively manage this conflict, they need to communicate so that their punctuation, or where the conflict started for each one, is clear and matches up. In this example, Linda made an impression about Joe’s level of commitment to the project based on an interpretation she made after selecting and organizing incoming information. Being aware of punctuation is an important part of perception checking, which we will discuss later. Let’s now take a closer look at how interpretation plays into the perception process (Communication, 2016).

Interpretation:

The free “OER” online textbook, Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies (2016), explains more about the third step of the perception process –interpretation:

Although selecting and organizing incoming stimuli happens very quickly, and sometimes without much conscious thought, interpretation can be a much more deliberate and conscious step in the perception process. Interpretation is the third part of the perception process, in which we assign meaning to our experiences using mental structures known as schemata. Schemata are like databases of stored, related information that we use to interpret new experiences. We all have fairly complicated schemata that have developed over time as small units of information combine to make more meaningful complexes of information.

Jandt (2013) asserts that a situation may be interpreted differently by diverse people. A policeman  cruising the neighborhood may be calming and reassuring to one person, yet be interpreted by another person as threatening and fear-inducing. Let us consider another instance of interpretation. We have an overall schema about education and how to interpret experiences with teachers and classmates. This schema started developing before we even went to preschool based on things that parents, peers, and the media told us about school. For example, you learned that certain symbols and objects like an apple, a ruler, a calculator, and a notebook are associated with being a student or teacher. You learned new concepts like grades and recess, and you engaged in new practices like doing homework, studying, and taking tests. You also formed new relationships with teachers, administrators, and classmates. As you progressed through your education, your schema adapted to the changing environment. How smooth or troubling schema reevaluation and revision is varies from situation to situation and person to person. For example, some students adapt their schema relatively easily as they move from elementary, to middle, to high school, and on to college and are faced with new expectations for behavior and academic engagement. Other students don’t adapt as easily, and holding onto their old schema creates problems as they try to interpret new information through old, incompatible schema. We’ve all been in a similar situation at some point in our lives, so we know that revising our schemata can be stressful and that such revision takes effort and usually involves some mistakes, disappointments, and frustrations. But being able to adapt our schemata is a sign of cognitive complexity, which is an important part of communication competence. So, even though the process may be challenging, it can also be a time for learning and growth.

It’s important to be aware of schemata because our interpretations affect our behavior. For example, if you are doing a group project for class and you perceive a group member to be shy based on your schema of how shy people communicate, you may avoid giving him presentation responsibilities in your group project because you do not think shy people make good public speakers. Schemata also guide our interactions, providing a script for our behaviors. We know, in general, how to act and communicate in a waiting room, in a classroom, on a first date, and on a game show. Even a person who has never been on a game show can develop a schema for how to act in that environment by watching The Price Is Right, for example. People go to great lengths to make shirts with clever sayings or act enthusiastically in hopes of being picked to be a part of the studio audience and hopefully become a contestant on the show.

As we have seen, schemata are used to interpret others’ behavior and form impressions about who they are as a person. To help this process along, we often solicit information from people to help us place them into a pre-existing schema. In the United States and many other Western cultures, people’s identities are often closely tied to what they do for a living. When we introduce others, or ourselves, occupation is usually one of the first things we mention. Think about how your communication with someone might differ if he or she were introduced to you as an artist versus a doctor. We make similar interpretations based on where people are from, their age, their race, and other social and cultural factors. We will learn more about how culture, gender, and other factors influence our perceptions as we continue through the chapter. In summary, we have schemata about individuals, groups, places, and things, and these schemata filter our perceptions before, during, and after interactions. As schemata are retrieved from memory, they are executed, like computer programs or apps on your smartphone, to help us interpret the world around us. Just like computer programs and apps must be regularly updated to improve their functioning, competent communicators update and adapt their schemata as they have new experiences (Communication, 2016, pp. 61-62).

Putting it Togher: The Process of Perception Explained in Video

The process of perception is explained in detail by Professor Steven Klien. What would you add to his explanation?

Dr. Steve Klien Shares:

In this video we take a look at the crucial psychological process of “perception,” how we make meaning out of or interpret our observations and experiences. As we examine the three-stage process, we’ll consider how perception both affects and is affected by human communication (Klien, 2020).

Summary of the Steps of Perception:

Selecting, organizing, and interpreting, then, all have unique roles in formulating the overall perception one has of a person, place, or thing. McLean (2018) stresses the intercultural elements involved in perception:

Our perception process is largely universal, even when we consider the range of sight, hearing, feeling, smell, or taste. What differs is how we perceive it, and our interpretations reflect our cultural backgrounds. We can easily recognize, for example, that some people can discern all the flavor “notes” in a wine, while to others all red wines taste almost the same. We can also acknowledge that we change over time, and young eyes often work better than older eyes. That said, it is not as much about whether our eyes are young or have seen many seasons as what we focus on or ignore during that perception process that makes a significant difference. Indeed, what it means to be “young” or “old” varies by culture. We perceive through our senses of touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound, and we form perceptions through the lens of our cultural background (Section 2.2).

The perception process raises the need to check if our perceptions are correct. Perception checking is a skill used to do just that. We will explore Perception checking in the last section. Next, we turn to perceive others.

Section Two: Perceiving Others

Perception and Others

The following materials were adapted from Communication in the Real World (2016) and help to explain perception’s impact on our notion of others:

Are you a good judge of character? How quickly can you “size someone up?” Interestingly, research shows that many people are surprisingly accurate at predicting how an interaction with someone will unfold based on initial impressions. Fascinating research has also been done on the ability of people to make a judgment about a person’s competence after as little as 100 milliseconds of exposure to politicians’ faces. Even more surprising is that people’s judgments of competence, after exposure to two candidates for senate elections, accurately predicted election outcomes (Ballew II & Todoroy, 2007). In short, after only minimal exposure to a candidate’s facial expressions, people made judgments about the person’s competence, and those candidates judged more competent were people who actually won elections! As you read this section, keep in mind that these principles apply to how you perceive others and to how others perceive you. Just as others make impressions on us, we make impressions on others. We have already learned how the perception process works in terms of selecting, organizing, and interpreting. In this section, we will focus on how we perceive others, with specific attention to how we interpret our perceptions of others.

Attribution and Interpretation

I’m sure you have a family member, friend, or coworker with whom you have ideological or political differences. When conversations and inevitable disagreements occur, you may view this person as “pushing your buttons.” if you are invested in the issue being debated, or you may view the person as “on their soapbox,” if you aren’t invested. In either case, your existing perceptions of the other person are probably reinforced after your conversation and you may leave the conversation thinking, “She is never going to wake up and see how ignorant she is! I don’t know why I even bother trying to talk to her!” Similar situations occur regularly, and there are some key psychological processes that play into how we perceive others’ behaviors. By examining these processes, attribution in particular, we can see how our communication with others is affected by the explanations we create for others’ behavior. In addition, we will learn some common errors that we make in the attribution process that regularly lead to conflict and misunderstanding.

Attribution

In most interactions, we are constantly running an attribution script in our minds, which essentially tries to come up with explanations for what is happening. Why did my neighbor slam the door when she saw me walking down the hall? Why is my partner being extra nice to me today? Why did my officemate miss our project team meeting this morning? In general, we seek to attribute the cause of others’ behaviors to internal or external factors. Internal attributions connect the cause of behaviors to personal aspects such as personality traits. External attributions connect the cause of behaviors to situational factors. Attributions are important to consider because our reactions to others’ behaviors are strongly influenced by the explanations we reach. Imagine that Gloria and Jerry are dating. One day, Jerry gets frustrated and raises his voice to Gloria. She may find that behavior more offensive and even consider breaking up with him if she attributes the cause of the blow up to his personality, since personality traits are usually fairly stable and difficult to control or change.

Conversely, Gloria may be more forgiving if she attributes the cause of his behavior to situational factors External attributions beyond Jerry’s control, since external factors are usually temporary. If she makes an internal attribution, Gloria may think, “Wow, this person is really a loose cannon. Who knows when he will lose it again?” If she makes an external attribution, she may think, “Jerry has been under a lot of pressure to meet deadlines at work and hasn’t been getting much sleep. Once this project is over, I’m sure he’ll be more relaxed.” This process of attribution is ongoing, and, as with many aspects of perception, we are sometimes aware of the attributions we make, and sometimes they are automatic and/or unconscious. Attribution has received much scholarly attention because it is in this part of the perception process that some of the most common perceptual errors or biases occur.

One of the most common perceptual errors is the fundamental attribution error which refers to our tendency to explain others’ behaviors using internal rather than external attributions (Sillars, 1980). For example, when I worked at an urban college in Denver, Colorado, I often had students come into class irritated, saying, “I got a parking ticket! I can’t believe those people. Why don’t they get a real job and stop ruining my life!” If you Google some clips from the reality television show Parking Wars, you will see the ire that people often direct at parking enforcement officers. In this case, illegally parked students attribute the cause of their situation to the malevolence of the parking officer, essentially saying they got a ticket because the officer was a mean/bad person, which is an internal attribution. Students were much less likely to acknowledge that the officer was just doing his or her job (an external attribution) and the ticket was a result of the student’s decision to park illegally.

Perceptual errors can also be biased, and in the case of the self-serving bias, the error works out in our favor. Just as we tend to attribute others’ behaviors to internal rather than external causes, we do the same for ourselves, especially when our behaviors have led to something successful or positive. When our behaviors lead to failure or something negative, we tend to attribute the cause to external factors. Thus, the self-serving bias is a perceptual error through which we attribute the cause of our successes to internal personal factors while attributing our failures to external factors beyond our control. When we look at the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias together, we can see that we are likely to judge ourselves more favorably than another person, or at least less personally.

The professor-student relationship offers a good case example of how these concepts can play out. I have often heard students who earned an unsatisfactory grade on an assignment attribute that grade to the strictness, unfairness, or incompetence of their professor. I have also heard professors attribute a poor grade to the student’s laziness, attitude, or intelligence. In both cases, the behavior is explained using an internal attribution and is an example of the fundamental attribution error. Students may further attribute their poor grade to their busy schedule or other external, situational factors rather than their lack of motivation, interest, or preparation (internal attributions). On the other hand, when students gets a good grade on a paper, they will likely attribute that cause to their intelligence or hard work rather than an easy assignment or an “easy grading” professor. Both of these examples illustrate the self-serving bias. These psychological processes have implications for our communication because when we attribute causality to another person’s personality, we tend to have a stronger emotional reaction and tend to assume that this personality characteristic is stable, which may lead us to avoid communication with the person or to react negatively. Now that you aware of these common errors, you can monitor them more and engage in perception checking, which we will learn more about later, to verify your attributions.

TED Talk Description:

Hollywood needs to stop resisting what the world actually looks like, says actor, director and activist America Ferrera. Tracing the contours of her career, she calls for more authentic representation of different cultures in media — and a shift in how we tell our stories. “Presence creates possibility,” she says. “Who we see thriving in the world teaches us how to see ourselves, how to think about our own value, how to dream about our futures” (2019).

Section Three: Perception Checking

“So far, we have learned about the perception process and how we perceive others and ourselves  Now we will turn to a discussion of how to improve our perception  Our self-perception can be improved by becoming aware of how schema, socializing forces, self-fulfilling prophecies, and negative patterns of thinking can distort our ability to describe and evaluate ourselves  How we perceive others can be improved by developing better listening and empathetic skills, becoming aware of stereotypes and prejudice, developing self-awareness through self-reflection, and engaging in perception checking” (Communication in the Real World, 2016).

As humans, we often assume that we are aware of, and even understand, what other people are thinking and feeling, that our perceptions of others are correct and updated. In truth, though, we usually do not take the time to attempt to ascertain in a nonjudgmental and clarifying way through perception-checking questions: “You seem upset;” “Are you?;” or “I get the impression that this exchange has hurt your feelings in some way  Is this true?” (Brookfield & Preskill, 2005)  Gudykunst & Kim (1995) point out that frequent perception checking can reduce ambiguity and facilitate intercultural communication. Through perception checking, we describe what we perceive the other person to be thinking or feeling and then request clearly and in a non-threatening manner that the other person confirms or corrects our perception. According to Brookfield and Preskill (2005), perception checks send a valuable message to one’s interlocutor of another culture who genuinely wants to listen, observe, and then understand their verbal or nonverbal communication. As we shall see, there is a necessary tie between perception checking and compassionate listening.

Compassionate listening is most simply defined as a “quality of listening which creates a safe container for people to be free to express themselves and to go to the level of their deep concerns….[It means] listening deeply to the needs and suffering of others and respecting their rights to their opinions…[forming the] basis of…successful dialogue, [which] can only take place when people are really ready to listen to each other and to themselves” (Hwoschinsky, 2006, p.3)  To adequately practice the dynamic process of compassionate listening, then, perception checks, Brookfield and Preskill (2005) accentuate, are especially important in intercultural communication encounters  Given that individuals from different cultures sense, interpret, and understand the world in different ways, perception checks can help ameliorate the inherent ambiguity that is part of intercultural communication (Samovar, Porter, McDaniel, & Roy, 2017).

In the process of successful intercultural communication, one need not overly worry about perception checks interrupting the flow of conversation and thus creating a burden or barrier to effective communication. It is just the opposite and should take precedence over the discussion. If a perception check occurs, for example: “I heard you mention the term ‘class’ several times as you described your upbringing.” “I am wondering, are you saying that racism always has an underlying economic cause or is it primarily a finite issue? Can you explain that a bit more?” Another less “technically structured” example of a simple perception-checking question is: “Did I paraphrase your last comment correctly?” Note, the discussion itself stops so that the person of the other culture may think about and answer the given perception check. The conversation is allowed to check and clarify what was previously said and then confirm the perception check. Only after both interlocutors involved in the conversation have checked their perceptions and clarified their meanings so that they are satisfied with the meaning and nuance of the conversation can the discussion continue (Brookfield and Preskill, 2005).

Brookfield and Preskill (2005) remind us that though the natural flow of the conversation was interrupted, it was necessary to clarify the accuracy of the communication and enhance a mutual common understanding lest the meaning and message of the conversation be lost or diminished and cause unnecessary discomfort or even halt the conversation.

Perception-checking is vital to ensuring that all involved interpret the meaning and message fully and accurately. Importantly, this process gives those whose voice is habitually misunderstood and are victims of miscommunication, for several reasons, e.g., a persecuted minority or practitioner of an alternative lifestyle incongruent with the dominant culture, etc., an opportunity to put forth or communicate honestly and accurately the message or part of their life-narrative that they may desperately want to communicate. Such a process allows those persecuted and misunderstood to express their narrative or story in a dignified, humane fashion, thus allowing them to express their felt human experience. When creating a perception check, you will use three steps, as quoted below from the free open education resource textbook, Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies (2016):

Step 1: Describe the behavior or situation without evaluating or judging it.

Step 2: Think of some possible interpretations of the behavior, being aware of attributions and other influences on the perception process.

Step 3: Verify what happened and ask for clarification from the other person’s perspective. Be aware of punctuation, since the other person likely experienced the event differently than you.”
(p. 110).

Perception Check Format

During a perception check, the standard format is as follows:

Step 1: Perception checks include “I” language and a clearly stated observation or fact: “I heard you mention ____.

Step 2: This is followed by two possible interpretations: I wonder if ___ or ___ is the case for you?

Step 3: Finally, the perception check is completed with a clarification request: Can you clarify?”

Sample Perception Check

Additional Tips for Better Communication

Again, drawing upon the previous work of Communication in the Real World (2016), the University of MN authors share the following tips for better communication:

Beware of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Self-fulfilling prophecies are thought and action patterns in which a person’s false belief triggers a behavior that makes the initial false belief actually or seemingly come true (Guyll et al., 2010). For example, let’s say a student’s biology lab instructor is a Chinese person who speaks English as a second language. The student falsely believes that the instructor will not be a good teacher because he speaks English with an accent. Because of this belief, the student doesn’t attend class regularly and doesn’t listen actively when she does attend. Because of these behaviors, the student fails the biology lab, which then reinforces her original belief that the instructor wasn’t a good teacher.

Although the concept of self-fulfilling prophecies was originally developed to be applied to social inequality and discrimination, it has since been applied in many other contexts, including interpersonal communication. This research has found that some people are chronically insecure, meaning they are very concerned about being accepted by others but constantly feel that other people will dislike them. This can manifest in relational insecurity, which is again based on feelings of inferiority resulting from social comparison with others perceived to be more secure and superior. Such people often end up reinforcing their belief that others will dislike them because of the behaviors triggered by their irrational belief. Take the following scenario as an example: An insecure person assumes that his date will not like him. During the date he doesn’t engage in much conversation, discloses negative information about himself, and exhibits anxious behaviors. Because of these behaviors, his date forms a negative impression and suggests they not see each other again, reinforcing his original belief that the date wouldn’t like him. The example shows how a pattern of thinking can lead to a pattern of behavior that reinforces the thinking, and so on. Luckily, experimental research shows that self-affirmation techniques can be successfully used to intervene in such self-fulfilling prophecies. Thinking positive thoughts and focusing on personality strengths can stop this negative cycle of thinking and has been shown to have positive effects on academic performance, weight loss, and interpersonal relationships (Stinston et al., 2011).

Create and Maintain Supporting Interpersonal Relationships

You already know from our discussion of attribution errors that we all have perceptual biases that distort our thinking. Many of these are common, and we often engage in distorted thinking without being conscious of it. Learning about some of the typical negative patterns of thinking and acting may help us acknowledge and intervene in them. One such pattern involves self-esteem and overcompensation.

People with low self-esteem may act in ways that overcompensate for their feelings of low self-worth and other insecurities. Whether it’s the businessman buying his midlife crisis Corvette, the “country boy” adding monster tires to his truck, or the community leader who wears several carats of diamonds everywhere she goes, people often turn to material possessions to try to boost self-esteem. While these purchases may make people feel better in the short term, they may have negative financial effects that can exacerbate negative self-perceptions and lead to interpersonal conflict. People also compensate for self-esteem with their relational choices. A person who is anxious about his career success may surround himself with people who he deems less successful than himself. In this case, being a big fish in a small pond helps some people feel better about themselves when they engage in social comparison.

People can also get into a negative thought and action cycle by setting unrealistic goals and consistently not meeting them. Similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy, people who set unrealistic goals can end up with negative feelings of self-efficacy, which as we learned earlier, can negatively affect self-esteem and self-concept. The goals we set should be challenging but progressive, meaning we work to meet a realistic goal, then increase our expectations and set another goal, and so on.

Some people develop low self-esteem because they lack accurate information about themselves, which may be intentional or unintentional. A person can intentionally try to maintain high self-esteem by ignoring or downplaying negative comments and beliefs and focusing on positive evaluations. While this can be a good thing, it can also lead to a distorted self-concept. There is a middle ground between beating yourself up or dwelling on the negative and ignoring potentially constructive feedback about weaknesses and missing opportunities to grow as a person. Conversely, people who have low self-esteem or negative self-concepts may discount or ignore positive feedback. To wrap up this section, I’d like to turn to one of my favorite shows and a great source for examples relevant to the perception process: American Idol.

I’ve always enjoyed showing clips from American Idol auditions in my class when I teach about self-perception. As you probably know, the season always starts with audition footage shot in various cities. The range of singing abilities, not to mention personalities, of those who show up for a chance to sing in front of the judges leads millions of viewers to keep tuning in. While it’s obvious that the producers let some people through who they know don’t have a chance at making it on the show, they also know that certain personalities make for good reality television viewing. I’ve often found myself wondering, “Do these people really think they can sing?” The answer is sometimes a very clear “Yes!” Sure, some are there just to make a spectacle and hopefully make it on TV, but there are many who actually believe they have singing abilities—even to the point that they challenge and discount the judges’ comments.

During the contestant’s tearful and/or angry postrejection interview, they are often shown standing with their family and friends, who are also surprised at the judges’ decision. These contestants could potentially avoid this emotional ending by following some of the previous tips. It’s good that they have supportive interpersonal relationships, but people’s parents and friends are a little biased in their feedback, which can lead to a skewed self-concept. These contestants could also set incremental goals. Singing at a local event or even at a karaoke bar might have helped them gain more accurate information about their abilities and led them to realize they didn’t have what it takes to be an “American idol.”

Overcoming Barriers to Perceiving Others

There are many barriers that prevent us from competently perceiving others. While some barriers (see above) are more difficult to overcome than others, they can all be addressed by raising our awareness of the influences around us and committing to monitoring, reflecting on, and changing some of our communication habits. Whether it is our lazy listening skills, lack of empathy, or stereotypes and prejudice, various filters and blinders influence how we perceive and respond to others. Whether through travel, meeting members of other cultures at school or in one’s community, or meeting them virtually, empathy, closely monitoring of one’s listening, acquired biases and prejudices, or fear of communicating with someone different than oneself, goes a long way towards misperception and poor communication.

Beware of Stereotypes and Prejudice

Stereotypes are sets of beliefs that we develop about groups, which we then apply to individuals from that group. Stereotypes are schemata that are taken too far, as they reduce and ignore a person’s individuality and the diversity present within a larger group of people. Stereotypes can be based on cultural identities, physical appearance, behavior, speech, beliefs, and values, among other things, and are often caused by a lack of information about the target person or group (Guyll et al., 2010). Stereotypes can be positive, negative, or neutral, but all run the risk of lowering the quality of our communication.

While the negative effects of stereotypes are pretty straightforward in that they devalue people and prevent us from adapting and revising our schemata, positive stereotypes also have negative consequences. For example, the “model minority” stereotype has been applied to some Asian cultures in the United States. Seemingly positive stereotypes of Asian Americans as hardworking, intelligent, and willing to adapt to “mainstream” culture are not always received as positive and can lead some people within these communities to feel objectified, ignored, or overlooked.

Stereotypes can also lead to double standards that point to larger cultural and social inequalities. There are many more words to describe a sexually active female than a male, and the words used for females are disproportionately negative, while those used for males are more positive. Since stereotypes are generally based on a lack of information, we must take it upon ourselves to gain exposure to new kinds of information and people, which will likely require us to get out of our comfort zones. When we do meet people, we should base the impressions we make on describable behavior rather than inferred or secondhand information. When stereotypes negatively influence our overall feelings and attitudes about a person or group, prejudiced thinking results.

Prejudice is negative feelings or attitudes toward people based on their identity or identities. Prejudice can have individual or widespread negative effects. At the individual level, a hiring manager may not hire a young man with a physical disability (even though that would be illegal if it were the only reason), which negatively affects that one man. However, if pervasive cultural thinking that people with physical disabilities are mentally deficient leads hiring managers all over the country to make similar decisions, then the prejudice has become a social injustice. In another example, when the disease we know today as AIDS started killing large numbers of people in the early 1980s, response by some health and government officials was influenced by prejudice. Since the disease was primarily affecting gay men, Haitian immigrants, and drug users, the disease was prejudged to be a disease that affected only “deviants” and therefore didn’t get the same level of attention it would have otherwise. It took many years, investment of much money, and education campaigns to help people realize that HIV and AIDS do not prejudge based on race or sexual orientation and can affect any human.

Engage in Self-Refelction

A good way to improve your perceptions and increase your communication competence in general is to engage in self-reflection. If a communication encounter doesn’t go well and you want to know why, your self-reflection will be much more useful if you are aware of and can recount your thoughts and actions.

Self-reflection can also help us increase our cultural awareness. Our thought process regarding culture is often “other focused,” meaning that the culture of the other person or group is what stands out in our perception. However, the old adage “know thyself” is appropriate, as we become more aware of our own culture by better understanding other cultures and perspectives. Developing cultural self-awareness often requires us to get out of our comfort zones. Listening to people who are different from us is a key component of developing self-knowledge. This may be uncomfortable, because our taken-for-granted or deeply held beliefs and values may become less certain when we see the multiple perspectives that exist.

We can also become more aware of how our self-concepts influence how we perceive others. We often hold other people to the standards we hold for ourselves or assume that their self-concept should be consistent with our own. For example, if you consider yourself a neat person and think that sloppiness in your personal appearance would show that you are unmotivated, rude, and lazy, then you are likely to think the same of a person you judge to have a sloppy appearance. So asking questions like “Is my impression based on how this person wants to be, or how I think this person should want to be?” can lead to enlightening moments of self-reflection. Asking questions in general about the perceptions you are making is an integral part of perception checking, which we will discuss next.

Checking Perception

Again, perception checking is a strategy to help us monitor our reactions to and perceptions about people and communication. There are some internal and external strategies we can use to engage in perception checking. In terms of internal strategies, review the various influences on perception that we have learned about in this chapter and always be willing to ask yourself, “What is influencing the perceptions I am making right now?” Even being aware of what influences are acting on our perceptions makes us more aware of what is happening in the perception process. In terms of external strategies, we can use other people to help verify our perceptions.

The cautionary adage “Things aren’t always as they appear” is useful when evaluating your own perceptions. Sometimes it’s a good idea to bounce your thoughts off someone, especially if the perceptions relate to some high-stakes situation. But not all situations allow us the chance to verify our perceptions. Preventable crimes have been committed because people who saw something suspicious didn’t report it even though they had a bad feeling about it. Of course, we have to walk a line between being reactionary and being too cautious, which is difficult to manage. We all know that we are ethically and sometimes legally required to report someone to the police who is harming himself or herself or others, but sometimes the circumstances are much more uncertain.

Application Activites

Meet Cindy, your Peer Student Speaker

Sample Enrichment Activity: Cindy is a student who gave a video-based speech on her Hmong culture. She explains that her family came from Laos after the Secret War and eventually resettled in Minnesota. 

1. First, as you listen to Cindy’s speech, make a list of new information to you.
2. Second, make a list of your inferences while listening to the speech. As a reminder, we make observations through our five senses (in this case, what we see/hear) and build inferences based upon our observations.
3. Review the 3-part perception check if needed. Write at least one perception check using the three-part form.

Sample Observations & Inferences:

As a reminder, we make observations through our five senses (in this case, what we see/hear); then, we build inferences based upon our observations. For example, Do you notice Cindy’s smile? Did you infer that, as she shares, she possesses great pride in her culture? Did you hear her mention her grandfather’s role in the Secret War and guess she wants others to understand why Hmong individuals and families sought asylum in Minnesota?

Sample Perception Checks:

• “Hi Cindy, I see you wear the traditional pink top you showed us in the video. I wonder if your family identifies with the Vietnamese-Hmong culture or if this is a garment you think is pretty and are just wearing today. Can you clarify this?”
• “Hi Cindy, I see you are wearing a silver xauv. Does this mean your family is Hmong, not Chinese, since it is silver, or is this not the case, and perhaps you are wearing it because you like the way it looks? Can you help me understand?”

Sample Discussion – Our Key Video Case Study

Watch the following interview between Kao Kalia Yang, Cindy Thao (a COMM student), and Lori Halverson-Wente

 

Kao Kalia Yang’s Story – Thinking more about Making Visible

Researchers describe the “model minority” stereotype as one of the most pervasive and harmful assumptions about Asian Americans. It contends that Asian Americans are a uniformly high-achieving racial minority that has assimilated well into American society through hard work, obedience to social mores and academic achievement” (Abrams, 2019). Consider Ms. Yang’s explanation about how Hmong children in the United States should grow up to be doctors or lawyers, “Doctors to heal our bones and lawyers to stand up for the rights we have never had before.” The pressure to succeed is described in many research articles.

In thinking about the Hmong-American experience, researchers Lee, Xiong, Pheng, & Vang (2017) sought to understand better the impact of the “model minority” stereotype’s influence on young Hmong-Americans in the midwest:

Since the Civil Rights era, Asian Americans have been positioned as “model minorities” who have achieved economic and academic success through hard work, grit, and adherence to traditional cultural values. From the moment the stereotype emerged on the scene Asian American communities have been embroiled in debates over how to respond. Critical Asian American scholars have repeatedly argued that the model minority stereotype is a hegemonic tool that sustains the myth of meritocracy, silences charges of racial injustice, disciplines Black and Brown communities and masks the struggles faced by Asian American communities (see also Hartlep, 2013; Lee, 2009; Lee & Kumashiro, 2005; Leonardo, 2009; Osajima, 1988; Poon et al., 2015)…[T]he model minority stereotype continues to frame dominant understandings of who Asian Americans are and how they are doing relative to other racial groups.

As Asian Americans, the Hmong American community is also judged against the standards of the model minority stereotype. The scholarship on Hmong Americans and U.S. Census data on 3 Lee et al.: The Model Minority Maze Published by Purdue e-Pubs, 2017 Hmong Americans reveal that Hmong students often struggle to achieve the levels of economic and academic achievement associated with the model minority stereotype (Ngo, 2006; Ngo & Lee, 2007, pp. 1-4).

Hmong-American youth, then, face two different stereotypes – that of “being the least successful of Asian Americans” when also held to the demanding, high stereotypical standard of the “model minority.”

The pressure of living between the two stereotypes aforementioned has consequences. Communication in the Real World (2016)  helps us understand the power of stereotypes and our self-development. Please review this below:

A self-fulfilling prophecy is an expectation held by a person that alters his or her behavior in a way that tends to make it true. When we hold stereotypes about a person, we tend to treat the person according to our expectations. This treatment can influence the person to act according to our stereotypic expectations, thus confirming our stereotypic beliefs.” In her video, Kao Kalia Yang shares the story of how her mother was shunned at K-mart and, as a result of this and other racist treatment she has witnessed, Kalia decides not to speak in English. Subsequently, she is labeled, “selective mute” in her school records. The racist treatment she endured impacted her own communication behavior. Her story shares the incredible enduring love she also received from her family that she drew upon to complete her own, and her families’ dreams for her to become highly educated and successful.

Self-fulfilling prophecies are ubiquitous—teachers’ expectations about their students’ academic abilities can influence their school performance (Jussim, Robustelli, & Cain, 2009). Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found that disadvantaged students whose teachers expected them to perform well had higher grades than disadvantaged students whose teachers expected them to do poorly. From this study, we generalize that when given positive feedback, others will seek to fulfill that expectation. At the same time, when we fail to meet that expectation, we can feel more than disappointment; it can cause what theorists call “cognitive dissonance.”

If you’ve studied music, you probably know what dissonance is. Some notes, when played together on a piano, produce and sound that’s pleasing to our ears. When dissonant combinations of notes are played, we react by wincing or cringing because the sound is unpleasant to our ears. So dissonance is that unpleasant feeling we get when two sounds clash. The same principle applies to cognitive dissonance, which refers to the mental discomfort that results when new information clashes with or contradicts currently held beliefs, attitudes, or values. Using cognitive dissonance as a persuasive strategy relies on three assumptions: (1) people have a need for consistency in their thinking; (2) when inconsistency exists, people experience psychological discomfort; and (3) this discomfort motivates people to address the inconsistency to restore balance (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003). In short, when new information clashes with previously held information, there is an unpleasantness that results, as we have to try to reconcile the difference (Communcatoin in the Real World, 2016).

More recent studies on expectations placed on Hmong youth and students and the expectations of the perfect minority stereotype where one can not fail can cause cognitive dissonance. One strategy people use to deal with the tension of cognitive dissonance is to “avoid it in the future by shunning challenging situations and limiting information to that which affirms their current beliefs.”

“Compared to all other racial groups, Hmong Americans fare the worst across nearly all measures of income. When it comes to educational attainment, almost 30 percent of Southeast Asian Americans haven’t completed high school or passed the GED tests, compared to the 13 percent of the general population who have experienced the same” (Yam, 2021).

Being expected to be a “model minority” is often excluded in the binary of white-black race discussions and research. Being expected to be perfect while facing statistics that say you are from the refugee group that is the “most poor in the United States” is part of the experience shared in the following video by Nakita Yang.

What did you learn about perception? Discussion Questions.

• After watching the video interview embedded above between Cindy and Kalia, explain how perception impacts one’s life experience by applying any terms from the readings to the video interview. I’ll add ideas here later today with time points.
• Add one perception check you’d use to reply to Cindy or Kao Kalia.
  • Use the 3 parts (I statement of “observations,” 2 possible interpretations, end with a clarification question).
• Take at least 1 of the implicit bias quizzes: Click Here.
  • What do you think? Was the score accurate? No? What insight, if any, did the quizz(es) give you?
• What did you do/will you do to explore perception this week? Where will you go/do or what did you do/where did you go? Also, explain who you talked to.

 

Deeper Dive – Hmong American Experience: Life Between Two Worlds

The following video highlights one more challenge for Hmong younger generations: the expectation that they are both thoroughly American and fully Hmong. More youthful Hmong feel suspended between the traditional culture of their parents and the dominant culture they must deal with daily. Nakita Vang shares on her YouTube channel, “I was requested to upload this piece I created in celebration of #APIHeritageMonth back in May. This is a digital poetry piece on my Hmong-American journey juggling life and identity between two worlds. Although this is rooted in the narrative of my Hmong people, I know many ethnicities have voiced how they too share this experience. I think that is a beautiful thing for many of us who have no country on the map to explain where we are from and who we are. That we still have our very existence and story to tell” (YouTube Description).

Keep in Touch:

• IG: https://www.instagram.com/nakitavang/​
• FB: https://www.facebook.com/nakitacvang“

Additional Case Studies about the Challenges to Perception

Consider this Case Study on Police

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)

The following video (prepared by students of (MC244) Bachelor of Mass Communication (Hons), Advertising UiTM Shah Alam Selangor, Malaysia) demonstrates that awkward shifting of one’s communication style based upon the desire to fit in when we perceive that we are not matching the communication styles of others.

The  discusses Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), which is a theory that explains how people adjust their communication styles to fit the situation and the people they are communicating with. The video explains the key concepts of the theory, including convergence (adjusting communication style to be more similar to the other person) and divergence (emphasizing differences in communication style). It also provides examples of how CAT can be applied in real-life situations, such as in the workplace or in intercultural communication. The video is informative and provides a clear explanation of CAT.

Principles

In the video skit above, the students  demonstrate “Communication Accommodation Theory.” The following explanation is from “Communication Accommodation Theory” by Daniel Usera & contributing author; LibreTexts is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA .

First conceived by communication professor Howard Giles in 1971, Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) was mainly about speech, but then adapted to involve verbal and nonverbal communication (Hordila-Vatamanescu, 2010). Giles described developing the theoretical perspective in his graduate school days in the United Kingdom, and muses that he still is constantly noticing new ways people accommodate others, such as when his wife lost her voice for a few days, and others would whisper to her, thinking she was whispering for another reason (Gallois et al., 2016).

The theory is about convergence and divergence in accommodation, and says that communicators are likely to accommodate to the person they are speaking with by adopting their mode of communication. Soliz, Thorson, and Rittenour say “…accommodation is performed for seeking approval, inclusion, affiliation, or interpersonal goals,” while nonaccommodation serves to highlight differences between people (2009, p. 821).

Divergent communicators maintain their own way of communicating, and then the communication differs from the other communicator. There is also the concept of over accommodating, as Hordila-Vatamanescu (2010) says, means they exaggerate the accommodation. There are three types of over-accommodation:

“The first type of CAT is sensory where people tend to over adapt to others in their communication to those who are perceived as limited in their abilities. The second type is dependency, where the person who is talking speaks to others as if they’re in a lower status than them. Lastly, intergroup occurs when the speakers place listeners in cultural groups without acknowledging individual uniqueness” (Hordila-Vatamanescu, 2010, p. 281).

Within CAT, however it occurs, it’s important to note that communication happens within a context, as always, and that there is always negotiation of relationships within a conversation, including power within a relationship, when communicating (Neuliep, 2018). Accommodation plays a large role in countries like the United States in explaining how many people of different races and ethnicities may accommodate their communication to people in the different dominant groups. Based on these stereotypes of outgroup members, expectations may arise about people of the non-dominant culture — our dominant white culture, for example, may have the expectation that all people should speak English. If someone from a different culture does not speak much English, the communicator from the dominant culture may then think that shouting their message compensates for the difference in language. Norms of accommodation may appear. When over accommodating happens, it may make the communicator seem condescending, which hopefully, the person does not desire.  However, when done well, “communication accommodation becomes a mutual feeling of identification between the source and the receiver” (Hordila-Vatamanescu, 2010, p. 283). Communicators begin to feel more similarity and commonality, which begets affection, or likeability. When people from different cultures accommodate by moving to Texas and trying to act friendlier to others, people will feel more commonality, even if the person from another state wasn’t used to acting friendly to acquaintances.

Applications

CAT can be used in many contexts, as in between cultures, ages, genders, and virtual communities. Between cultures, people may become more comfortable with someone from a different culture if they mirror nonverbally, and topics of conversation that would interest the other.

For instance, communication accommodation was seen when a Muslim family in a suburb in Texas invited their white neighbors to attend the home petting zoo birthday party of their three-year-old child. At the party, the food was halal, as is customary to the culture of the Muslim family, and most of the party-goers were family members. The white family had older children and instructed their daughter to dress a bit more conservatively than her normal short-shorts as an accommodating nonverbal gesture. Both parties had accommodating behaviors and communication.

Many times, accommodating behaviors occur between people of different ages. If there is a big age difference, for instance, professors need to ensure they are giving examples that are relevant to their students. For instance, using an example of nonverbal communication accommodation between cultures could come from the movie European Vacation, which was created in the 1980s, but a more recent example would be something like the television show Blackish.

Over accommodation is often seen in communication between different age groups, as in communication between parents and children, neither of whom may realize they are maturing as fast as they are. One study discussed CAT and estrangement of adult children, and Rittenour et al (2018) found that there were about an equal number of instances of parents using accommodation (65) and over accommodation (61), which is seen as negative, and fewer cases of under accommodation (30), which is also seen as negative.

Cross-gender communication may be another instance where CAT is employed, and stereotypes are often used in this type of conversation. What’s most important in cross-gender communication is not to make assumptions, and let the person communicate for themselves. Respond to how they respond. “Mansplaining” is a term in which a male explains a topic to a female on which the female is more of an expert the male, yet the male talks about it authoratatively anyway. CAT can also be seen in environments of virtual communities, as “it may account for discovering how people perceive, assume and express their identity in a boundless community” (Hordila-Vatamanescu, 2010, p. 287).

Another example of using CAT to study mediated communication is CAT through textisms, which are when people use emojis, shorten words, or use incorrect capitalization in a text. For instance, “R u going 2 the store? :-)” instead of “Are you going to the store?” A study looking at gender and whether people like each other and whether power affects the way people use textisms found that there is a relationship in the use of textisms and whether people like each other and whether they have unequal power balance in a relationship (Adams, Miles, Dunbar, & Giles, 2018). There was a significant correlation between liking and people using more textisms (Adams et al., 2018). Giles (2016) has taken a look at CAT over the years, and showed how it’s truly become multi-disciplinary, it’s studied in many languages, and it’s still relevant today. All of this is amusingly appropriate for a chapter on culture and interpersonal communication.

Activity: CAT in Action

Consider a friend or acquaintance that you have who is from a different culture. Think about a time you have used CAT within a conversation interculturally. How did it affect the conversation? Talk with that person now about what they thought was happening in the conversation, and whether they noticed the accommodation was happening. Discuss your observations in a discussion.

Works Cited:

“About Us,” NAAFA: the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, accessed June 6, 2012, http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/about/index.html.

Adler, R. B., & Proctor III, R. F. (2019). Looking out/looking in. Cengage Learning.

AICHO. (2018, March 27). AICHO Paths to Resilience [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r4-ib5ezNY.

AlisaZafira. (2017, October 20). Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/Rv4u45HBr3c

Armenta, B. E. and Jennifer S. Hunt, “Responding to Societal Devaluation: Effects of Perceived Personal and Group Discrimination on the Ethnic Group Identification and Personal Self-Esteem of Latino/Latina Adolescents,” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 12, no. 1 (2009): 11–12.

Ballew II, C. C. and Alexander Todorov, “Predicting Political Elections from Rapid and Unreflective Face Judgments,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no. 46 (2007): 17948.

Beer, A. and David Watson, “Personality Judgement at Zero Acquiantance: Agreement, Assumed Similarity, and Implicit Simplicity,” Journal of Personality Assessment 90, no. 3 (2008): 252.

Brewer, M. B., “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues 55, no. 3 (1999): 429–44.

Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. John Wiley & Sons.

Cavanaugh, T. J. (2015). Intercultural communication apprehension: A study of communication among students from diverse backgrounds. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 447-460.

Cherry, K. (2021). What is Othering? Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5075122.

Coleman, J. T., King, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2022). Prejudice and stereotyping. In The Handbook of Social Psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 549–590). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.ch17

Communication in the Real World  (2016)  The University of MN.

Coren, S., “Principles of Perceptual Organization and Spatial Distortion: The Gestalt Illusions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6, no. 3 (1980): 404–12.

de la Baume, M., “First Lady without a Portfolio (or a Ring) Seeks Her Own Path,” The New York Times, May 15, 2012, accessed June 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/world/europe/frances-first-lady-valerie-trierweiler-seeks-her-own-path.html?pagewanted=all.

De Fleur, M. L., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1993). Fundamentals of communication: Readings in cultural, social, and interpersonal contexts. Mayfield Publishing Company.

Encina, G. B., “Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to Authority,” The Regents of the University of California, 2003, accessed June 6, 2012, http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm.

Ferrera, A. (2019, April). My identity is a superpower — not an obstacle [Video]. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/america_ferrera_my_identity_is_a_superpower_not_an_obstacle?language=en.

Fiske, S. T., and Shelley E. Taylor, Social Cognition, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1991).

Gamble, T. K., & Gamble, M. W. (1996). Communication works. McGraw-Hill.

Glaser, J. (n.d.). Cross-Cultural Communication: Definition, Strategies & Examples. Study.com. https://study.com/academy/lesson/cross-cultural-communication-definition-strategies-examples.html.

Green, K., Fairchild, R., Knudsen, B., & Lease-Gubrud, D. (2022). Hofstede’s dimensions of culture. In Intercultural Communication: Open Educational Resource (OER) textbook. Retrieved from https://open.lib.umn.edu/interculturalcommunication/chapter/hofstedes-dimensions-of-culture/.

Guyll, M., et al., “The Potential Roles of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, Stigma Consciousness, and Stereotype Threat in Linking Latino/a Ethnicity and Educational Outcomes,” Social Issues 66, no. 1 (2010): 116.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1995). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Halualani, R. T. (2022). Intercultural communication: A critical perspective (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Hargie, O., Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 280.

Harvard. (2022). Project Implicit. Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/aboutus.html .

Hwoschinsky, O. (2006). Empathy and compassionate listening. A manual for the facilitator and trainer. ACT Alliance Humanitarian Policy and Practice Group. https://actalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Empathy-Compassionate-Listening-Facilitation-Manual.pdf.

Jussim, L., Robustelli, F., & Cain, T. R. (2009). The accuracy of teachers’ expectations and judgments of students’ academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 662–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014697.

Katz, M., “Tossing Out the Diet and Embracing the Fat,” The New York Times, July 16, 2009, accessed June 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/health/nutrition/16skin.html.

Klein, A. (2020, May 20). Perception: The process of making meaning. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvBZ5A5lImI.

Lee, J. K., Xiong, Y. P., Pheng, V., & Vang, C. (2017). Navigating the model minority stereotype: A qualitative study of Hmong American experiences in the Midwest. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 12(1), 1-19. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1245&context=jsaaea

McLean, S. (2018). Intercultural communication for global business: How leaders communicate for success. Routledge.

McCornack, S., Reflect and Relate: An Introduction to Interpersonal Communication (Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2007), 93.

McCrea, R. R., “Trait Psychology and Culture,” Journal of Personality 69, no. 6 (2001): 825.

McCroskey, J. C. (2001). An introduction to communication anxiety. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Neuliep, J. W. (2018). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (7th ed.). Sage Publications.

Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A. Bargh (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 265-292). Psychology Press.

Payne, B. K., “Prejudice and Perception: The Role of Automatic and Controlled Processes in Misperceiving a Weapon,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, no. 2 (2001): 181–92.

Psychology Today. (n.d.). Extroversion/introversion test. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/tests/personality/extroversion-introversion-test.

Retting, T. (2017, September 29). Three cognitive biases that affect your intercultural communication skills. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-cognitive-biases-affect-your-intercultural-timon-retting/.

Rozelle, R. M., and James C. Baxter, “Impression Formation and Danger Recognition in Experienced Police Officers,” Journal of Social Psychology 96 (1975): 54.

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., McDaniel, E. R., & Roy, C. S. (2017). Intercultural communication: A reader. Cengage Learning.

Sillars, A. L., “Attributions and Communication in Roommate Conflicts,” Communication Monographs 47, no. 3 (1980): 180–200.

Stinson, D. A., et al., “Rewriting the Self-Fulfililng Prophecy of Social Rejection: Self-Affirmation Improves Relational Security and Social Behavior up to 2 Months Later,” Psychological Science 20, no. 10 (2011): 2.

The Barton Blueprint for Emotional Intelligence. (2022, February 22). How to Perception Check [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX9ntzmqW8g&ab_channel=TheBartonBlueprintforEmotionalIntelligence

Usera, D., et. al.  (2021, April 30)  Communication Accommodation Theory  Austin Community College  https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/90688.

Vang, N. (2019, May 22). Juggling two worlds [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8jKmQdVwH4.

Watzlawick, P., Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes (New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1967), 56.

What Would You Do? (Producer). (2019, September 6). Children bully their classmates because of race | WWYD [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/V2SbBjrLyP8

“About Us,” NAAFA: the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, accessed June 6, 2012, http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/about/index.html.

Attributions

We are grateful for the use of the following Open Education Resources remixed above as noted and under the Creative Commons 4.0 License.

1. 2.3: Barriers to Intercultural Communication is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Lisa Coleman, Thomas King, & William Turner.
2. “Culture” by Keith Green, Ruth Fairchild, Bev Knudsen, & Darcy Lease-Gubrud, LibreTexts is licensed under CC BY-NC .
3. Communication in the Real World  (2016)  The University of Minnesota  https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/2-1-perception-process/#jones_1.0-ch02_s01_s01_f01
4. “Communication Accommodation Theory” by Daniel Usera & contributing authors, LibreTexts is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA .
5. •4.2: Cross-Cultural Communication by Daniel Usera & contributing authors is licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.