Impression Formation Theory

Solomon E. Asch
(b. 1907- d.1996)
Source: Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict


Summary:
The impression formation theory was pioneered by Solomon Asch (1946). Developed to understand how person impressions are established, Asch found that adjective traits were an important key in an organized process of forming impressions. The theory addresses how people use bits of information and selected cues to form general impressions. Impression formation involves the cognitive, perceptual and affective processes of making judgments and drawing conclusions about a person, an object or environment (Fidzani, 2002).
Information in isolation has different meanings than information in various contexts. Because of this, information is weighted and averaged with other information in order to form a more complex impression (Steggell et al., 2003). Impression formation involves four stages: Cue selection, Interpretive inference, Extended inferences and Anticipatory set or verbal report. Impression formation may be affected by (a) a person’s objective stimulus characteristics (b) the nature of stimuli and the context in which they are presented (c) perceiver variables (d) social interaction (Fidzani, 2002).
Most contemporary impression formation work seeks to emphasize cognitive process and representations. The Dual Process model suggests that a person may be perceived either as an individual or as a member of a stereotyped group, with the latter requiring less cognitive effort (Carlston & Mae, 2000). The Continuum model suggests that people form impressions based on both overall perceptions as well as on isolated elements (Fidzani, 2003). Other contemporary work has shifted attention to the way that impressions are influenced by perceiver’s states or characteristics. For example, perceivers often form impressions that are relatively congruent with accessible (e.g., primed) trait concepts, prior expectancies, processing goals and motives, moods and self-perceptions.


Future work on impression formation promises to explore such important issues as the interrelationships among different facets of impressions (traits, behaviors, affect, etc) and the role of interpersonal and conversational process (Carlston & Mae, 2000).


Level of Analysis:
Individual.


Methods:
Qualitative, mixed methods; stimulus-response sampling, forced-choice measures.

Application:
In architecture and interior design, emphasis is given to the importance of space within built environments and the way in which the organization of space affects human behavior. Impressions are formed not only of individuals but of the physical aspects of our environment as well. A building’s aesthetics, purpose, content and context provide cues and stimulus about not only the space itself but also the individual, thus influencing the response from the perceiver. The context in which behavior occurs has a considerable effect upon the impression the perceiver forms (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).
Not only does Impression Formation Theory have application in social interaction, but it can also find credence in the physical structure itself. The spatial and organizational layout of a space can influence behavior patterns and in turn affect person environment interaction. Various ways of living in different cultures can be seen as reflecting different patterns of coping. It is also possible that the physical structure of a house determines the resident’s way of living (Omata, 1992).
Impression Formation Theory suggests that environmental information is received through the process of perception and that the environment is an integral part of behavior. Impressions then serve to direct consumer (group) based or personal (individual) decisions. In housing studies, examples of application of the theory include: determining market trends; evaluating personal satisfaction with place and health; and well being in living environments.


References:
Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290

Carlston, D.E., Mae, L. (2000). Impression Formation. Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 234-236). Washington, DC: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Fidzani, L.C., (2002). First Impressions of the Interiors of Hotel Lobbies as Influences on Perceptions of Hotels. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.
L. Davis & S. Lennon (1988). Social cognition and the study of clothing and human behavior. Social Behavior and Personality Journal, 16, 175-186.
Omata, K. (1992). Spatial Organization of Activities of Japanese Families. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 259-267.
“Solomon E. Asch”. [Photograph]. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from The Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict

Steggell et al. (2003). Exploring theories of human behavior in housing research. Housing and Society, 30 (1),