Wk 2, IOP 470: Group Communication Worksheet
Please use APA formatting
Add References at the end of assignment
Use Textbook to help answer the questions
Use at least 1 additional peer reviewed reference
Title
ABC/123 Version X
1
Group Communication Worksheet
IOP/470 Version 1
1
University of Phoenix Material
Group Communication Worksheet
A communication process model can contain many elements, but the four critical pieces of a communication process model are the sender, the receiver, the message, and feedback.
Use the University Library or the Internet to locate credible sources regarding a communication process model that contains these four pieces.
Describe each piece of the communication process in the table that follows, and discuss how it can affect communication among group members. Each cell should contain a 20- to 35-word response.
Use the Empathy Revisited article in this weeks University Library Resources page to discuss how empathy can affect each piece of the communication process. Provide citations for all sources used.
Description
Effects on group communication
What is the effect of empathy?
Sender
Receiver
Message
Feedback
As discussed in Ch. 10 of Social Groups in Action and Interaction, group communication can be influenced by the three characteristics listed in the table that follows.
Describe the characteristics, in 35- to 50-word responses, as they would look in a group with a positive, effective communication style.
Description of a group or team with a positive, effective communication style
Quantity of discussion
Quality of discussion
Information sharing
Copyright XXXX by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2016 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved. FRED MASSARIK
IRVING R. WESCHLER
Empathy Revisited’
. . . .the Process of Understanding People.
Mike Corey walked into his office, fifteen
minutes behind schedule. Through the glass
partition Mike caught a glimpse of his boss.
Arthur Blick looked up briefly as Mike slid
into his chair. A number of signs obscured the
full view: “Tomorrow We Finally Have to
Get Organized,” “THIMK,” “Wait Till Next
Time^You Have Done Enough Damage for
Now.” Mike tried to look inconspicuous,
though his mind was working rapidly. He was
late for the third straight day. Oh, there were
good reasons all r i g h t . . . one day his wife
needed to be driven downtown and she wasn’t
readyone day he had a terrible headache . . .
and then . . . t o d a y . . . . His thoughts shifted
abruptlyit really didn’t matter as long as
Blick was in a good m o o d . . . . Mike had some
‘ The area covered by this article has heen suhject
to systematic study only in very recent years. It is
still much in flux, and few findings of certainty are as
yet availahle. As we seek to lay out some of the
prohlems, methods and results with which this re-
search is concerned, we are much aware of the tenta-
tive nature of our comments. The technically-inclined
reader is urged to examine R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo,
Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (Stan-
ford: Stanford University Press, 1958); F. Heider,
Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1958) ; and U. Bronfenhrenner.
J. Harding and M. GaUwey, “The Measurement of
Skill in Social Perception” in D. C. McClelland, et al..
Talent and Society (Princeton: Van Nostrand Co.,
1958).
very definite ideas about what kind of guy his
boss was. Usually he wasn’t a bad sort; busi-
ness-like, but human too. If you had a big prob-
lem, he probably would listen. Still he was so
dam changeable, and you had to hit him “just
right” if you wanted to get along. This morning
Blick seemed preoccupied . . . he looked up as if
he hardly saw you, yet the way he spun back
to his desk telegraphed “bad news.”
This was Jean Krugmeier’s first day on her
job. She liked being an employment inter-
viewer. People were interesting, and it would
be a novel experience to sit behind a desk all
day. The initial two interviews proceeded un-
eventfully. The third applicant wanted to be
foreman of the shipping gang. He was a young,
burly 250 pounder who said that he used to
work in the steel mills near Gary. He spoke
loudly, with much self-assurance. “Some sort
of a bullya leering Casanova of the hot-rod
set,” Jean thought. Jean always did dislike
guys like this, especially this sort of massive
redhead. Just like her kid brother used to be
“a real pest!” The more he bragged about his
qualifications, the more Jean became annoyed.
It wouldn’t do to let her feelings show; inter-
viewers are supposed to be friendly and objec-
MR. MASSARIK is Acting Assistant Professor of Personnel Management and Industrial Relations,
at the University of California, Los Angeles. MR. WESCHLER is Associate Professor of Person-
nel Management and Industrial Relations, also at The University of California, Los Angeles. Both
authors are members of the Human Relations Research Group of the Graduate School of Business
Administration and Institute of Industrial Relations, UCLA.
36
EMPATHY REVISITED 37
tive. She smiled sweetly, even if she did have a
mild suspicion that her antagonism might be
coming through. “I am sorry, we cannot use
you just now,” she said. “You don’t seem to
have the kind of experience we are looking for.
But we’ll be sure to keep your application in
the active file and call you as soon as something
comes us. Thank you for thinking of applying
with us.”
LOOKING AT SOCIAL PERCEPTION
These anecdotes serve to illustrate the all-
pervasive role that social perception plays in
our lives. Forming impressions of people is a
part of our daily experience, yet we rarely
single out the process for explicit considera-
tion.
Mike Corey was very much concerned with
making the correct perceptual assessment of
Arthur Blick’s mood for the morning. Of
course, he reacted without specifically worry-
ing about his empathy.’ He did what came
naturally. The physical obstructions in the
glass partition between the two oBces were
not the only barriers between these men. Mike’s
own views, attitudes, and feelings contributed
to the diBculties, and so in turn did Blick’s
behaNaor, which provided Mike with only a
limited amount of information (or cues). The
fact that the entire relationship was set in the
context of a given office situation both aided
and impeded the extent to which Mike Corey
could accurately perceive the relevant aspects
of his boss’s personality.
Jean Krugmeier probably does not think of
herself as a prejudiced person. She may asso-
ciate the term “prejudice” primarily with
racial intolerance. She argues vociferously that
people must have an “open mind.” Still, like
all of us, she too has “blind spots” and uses
“shortcut thinking” which gives her a distorted
picture of reality. Her feelings about burly red-
‘ In this context, we shall treat as synonymous the
concepts empathy, understanding of people, social
sensitivity, and accuracy in social perception.
headed men are very much like any other
prejudice. They are supported by a stereotype
that, in essence, says: “All of them are alike!”
Thus, Jean’s feelings may be irrational, her
mind may be closed, and her social perception
less than accurate because she subconsciously
prevents relevant information about people “of
this sort” from reaching her.
The Iltusion of Objectivity
Most of us pride ourselves on our ability to
look at people in a dispassionate, objective
manner. Yet the psychological realities are that
every time we have a personal contact we do
form favorable or unfavorable impressions
that influence our social behavior. We all have
some positive or negative feeling in our inter-
personal experiences. We do like or dislike in
varying degrees, even if we are not always will-
ing or able to recognize our true feelings.
Social perception is the means by which
people form impressions of and, hopefully,
understand one another. Emphathy, or social
sensitivity, is the extent to which they succeed
in developing accurate impressions, or actual
understanding, of others.’ Social j)erception is
not always rational or conscious; thus it fol-
lows that empathy is not necessarily the result
of conscious, rational effort. For some, it may
just seem to “hapjjen,” while others may de-
velop it only after much training and living
experience.
Three basic aspects of social perception
must be considered: (1) the perceiver, the
person who is “looking” and attempting to
understand; (2) the perceived, the person who
is being “looked at” or understood; and (3)
‘Many complexities are involved in the actual
measurement of social sensitivity. The definition given
here is a kind of practical shortcut, useful for most
everyday applications. For a consideration of the con-
ceptual issues, see, for example, N. L. Cage and L. J.
Cronbach, “Conceptual and Methodological Problems
in Interpersonal Perception,” Psychological Review,
LXII (1955), 411-422; and L J. Cronbach, “Processes
Affecting Scores on ‘Understanding of Others’ and
‘Assumed Similarity,'” Psychological Bulletin, LII
(1955), 177-193.
38 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
the situation, the total setting of social and
nonsocial forces within which the act of social
perception is lodged.’ We have already en-
countered “perceivers” Mike Corey and Jean
Krugmeier, and their respective “perceived”
counterparts, Arthur Blick and the burly job
applicant.
T h e Perceivers and the Perceived
Perceivers and perceived need not be single
individuals. Entire social groupings may do
the “looking” or may be “looked at.” We can,
for example, conceive of the social perceptions
existing between two rival departments of a
corporation, with each department viewing the
other with possible hostility or competitive
jealousy. Similarly, we may distinguish social
perceptions among small work groups, among
large companies, and even among nations. In-
deed any group of people, as well as any given
person, can be a principal participant in the
process of social perception.
The perceiver and perceived are not billiard
balls on a flat table top. Their interactions do
not usually produce obvious one-to-one cause-
and-eFect relations, for the perceived and the
perceiver both possess personalities of great
complexity. Social perception develops in the
give-and-take among these personalities-in-
action.
‘RTiat is termed “personality” for the indi-
vidual may be viewed as a unique pattern of
“group characteristics” for the social group-
ing, be it work group, department, company,
or nation. This pattern does not result from a
simple addition of the personalities of indi-
vidual members, although these individual per-
sonalities do have an impact. Rather, the social
grouping’s “personality” results from its
formal and informal traditions, and from its
accepted ways of “doing things.” For example,
some groups operate rigidly “according to
the book;” others are more flexible and free-
‘ This approach is in harmony with Robert Tannen-
baum and Fred Massarik, “Leadership: A Frame of
Reference,” Management Science, IV, 1 (October
1957), 1-19.
wheeling. Some groups are highly integrated,
with close and supportive relationships exist-
ing among their members; others are torn by
antagonistic cliques and by intense rivalries.
Some groups set high and constant standards
for the admission of new members; others are
more open and lax in their membership re-
quirements.”
Patterns of Perceiving
The process of social perception can be
graphically portrayed in a variety of ways. If
/ stands for “individual,” and G for any group-
ing of individuals (and if the arrow stands for
the act of perceiving), we may consider such
relations as the following:
Perceiver to Perceived
Type-A I > I (Individualto Individual)
Type-B I -^ G l Individual to Grouping)
Type-C G -^ I (Grouping to Individual)
Type-D G > C (Grouping to Grouping)
Our anecdotes were of tlie Type-A variety
one individual perceiving another individual.
Jean Krugmeier’s perception of the job appli-
cant, however, was influenced by a Type-B per-
ception, her view of all burly, red-headed
mena view that she as an individual held for
a broader (though tenuous) grouping of per-
sons. Under conditions beyond those already
described, Mike Corey may be perceived in a
Type-C relationship by his fellow employees, a
grouping that may view him with envy and
anger because of his ability to get away with
lateness without apparent untoward conse-
quences.
Type-D perceptions become important par-
ticularly in attempts to analyze the nature of
complex organizations, such as large sections
‘Among the better-known approaches to the anal-
ysis of a group’s personality is that of J. K. Hemphill
and C. M. Westie, “The Measurement of Group
Dimensions,” Journal of Psychology, XXIX (1950),
325-342. Many sociologists have also made important
contributions in this area; see, for example, Robert
Dubin, The World of Work (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1958) ; and Melville Dalton. Men Who
Manage (New York: John Wiley and Sons, in press).
EMPATHY REVISITED 39
or departments, entire firms, or other entities
composed of various subgroups. For instance,
a management consultant may wish to assess
the way in which the Sales Department views
the Credit Departmenthow the Reseach Sec-
tion sees the Development Branchor how
Employee Relations relates to Wage and Salary
Administrationand vice versa.
The four types of perceptual processes noted
so far are relatively straightforward: Type-A,
interindividual perception; Type-B, an indi-
vidual’s perception of a grouping; Type-C, a
grouping’s perception of an individual; and
Type-D, intergroup perception. Yet in each
type countless obvious as well as hidden distor-
tions can and do occur which prevent the per-
ceiver from obtaining a faithful image. These
breakdowns in communications, which we shall
need to explore further at a later point,
magnify their effects when we consider what
might be termed higher-order perception.
As Mike Corey, for instance, forms his per-
ceptions of Arthur Blick, he also considers the
way in which Blick reciprocates. In other
words, Corey is very much concerned to know
how Blick feels about him. Corey makes as-
sumptions about Blick’s view of him which
may or may not be correct. He may “think”
that Blick hardly saw him, whenif he were
to probe Blick’s true reactionhe might learn
that Blick saw Corey very well indeed and was
actively annoyed with his repeated tardiness.
The extent to which one accurately recognizes
someone else’s reactions to oneself defines a
special kind of social sensitivitythe ability
to assess correctly what another person
“thinks” about you.
Above, we are dealing with a “perception of
a perception.” We may conceive of a theo-
retically infinite series of social perceptions
that begin as follows:
1. First-order perceptions: how the perceiver
views the perceived (as illustrated by
T}’pesA, B, C, a n d D ) .
2. Second-order perceptions: how the per-
ceiver “thinks” the perceived views the
perceiver.
3. Third-order perceptions: how the per-
ceiver “thinks” the perceived views “the
perceiver’s perception of the perceived,”
etc.
By the time we reach third-order percep-
tions, the pattern has become immensely
problematical. Any further higher order adds
to the complexity. Fortunately, most of our
actual perceptions governing interactions with
others probably do not get more involved than
those defined by the first or second order.
One Empathyor Many?
There may be several different “empathies.”
Some perceivers seem more skillful in seeing
beneath the surface and in ferreting out correct
perceptions from vast networks of superficial
psychological defenses. Others are more cap-
able in hurdling the abyss that separates their
actual observations of cues from the more
remote recesses of behavior that they are seek-
ing to understand. Some excel in painstakingly
accumulating fragments of perceptual evidence
and piecing them together. Others have a
unique capacity for the elegant sweep that pulls
together quickly and accurately a broad com-
plexity of social phenomena.
Understanding social groupings rather than
individuals involves unique problems and may
require different skills of perception from
those needed in understanding individuals. The
talent for sizing up group opinion is probably
different from the “diagnostic skills” needed
for understanding a specific employee. An
executive of a large corporation, for instance,
may excel in accurately assessing opinions and
attitudes of union and work force, but he may
need to shar{)en his skills in empathizing with
his fellow corporate officers.
The probable existence of several “em-
pathies” is not surprising if we consider the
diversity of the factors at work. We have avail-
able a tremendous variety of cues that we may
40 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
draw on in order to understand how another
person thinks or feels, and these make differ-
ential demands upon our skills to draw in-
ferences that will yield accurate perceptions.
Cues: Raw Material of Perceiving
Cues are often direct: through words, ges-
tures, facial expressions, and sjjecific be-
havioral acts, they are transmitted to the per-
ceiver (interpreter) directly by the perceived
(communicator), sometimes consciously,
sometimes subconsciously. At other times, the
perceiver gets his insights second handas by
gossip, through reference letters, or by com-
ments overheard during a coffee-break.
Some cues are more obvious in their appar-
ent meaning. A broad smile and a friendly
hello usually reflect a clear expression of per-
sonal warmth, while a vague wave of the hand
is considerably more ambiguous and thus more
difficult to interpret.
Some cues are more clear-cut than others.
A girl’s approximate agethe beautician’s art
notwithstandingis likely to be more easily
assessable than the meaning of a Mona Lisa-
like smile; and despite best intentions, it may
be virtually impossible to base an analysis of
a person’s basic psychological motivations on
a casual martini-clouded social contact.
The psychological leap to be made from the
cues available to what we seek to understand
presents another consideration. As Mike Corey
viewed his boss Blick, he had knowledge of
Blick’s customary office behavior. He had ob-
served Blick before and under roughly similar
conditions. Past cues provided a good base of
present generalizations. On the other hand,
Mike Corey might want to join Blick’s country-
club set. There he would need some insights
into the latter’s social behavior. Corey would
search for some implicit theory, derived from
Blick’s on-the-job reactions, the only reactions
with which he is actually familiar. He would
try to extrapolate from Blick’s available pat-
tern of cues into a relatively distant and differ-
ent situation, and risk empathic failure in the
process.
The Perceiver’s Background
The perceiver brings to the task of under-
standing others two sets of interrelated char-
acteristics: (1) his general background, de77io-
graphic characteristics; and (2) his unique
self, personality characteristics.
Demographic characteristics are those broad
sociological aspects of the individual which,
for the most part, are easily definable, specific,
and outside tlie more subtle ebb-and-flow of
personality as such. Age, sex, nationality, re-
ligion, number of siblings, occupation, and
economic level are illustrative.
^Tien the psychologist Ronald Taft’ re-
viewed studies on the relation of certain demo-
graphic attributes to social perceptual skill
(especially empathy for individuals rather
than for social groupings), he formed conclu-
sions such as the following: (a) ability to
judge emotional expression in others increases
with age in children, but does not seem to in-
crease further with age in adulthood; (b) sex
differences in empathy are negligible, but there
may be a very slight edge in favor of women.
Thus it seems that when dealing with adults,
such as those encountered in business, age
alone provides no free ticket to social percep-
tual wisdom. Althoughhopefullyage may
bring increases in some areas of technical
knowledge, the process of getting older in and
of itself does not lead to heightened empathy.
Further, there does not seem to be much sub-
stance to the widely held assumption that
women are “better judges” of people tlian
men; the controversy on this point is not fully
resolved.
More significant relationships emerge from
an analysis of dynamic personality character-
istics. Taft’s attempt to find common threads
in the web of available research leads him to
” See R. Taft, “The Ability to Judge People,” Psy-
chological Bulletin, LII (1955). 1-23.
EMPATHY REVISITED 41
postulate rather substantial association be-
tween emotional adjustment and empathy. A
person’s emotional adjustment hinges prima-
rily on how he sees himself and how he feels
about himselfit is closely linked to his self-
concept.
One’s self-concept provides a kind of psy-
chological “base of operations” that inevitably
aFects relations with family, friends, business
associates, and strangers. Some aspects of the
self-concept are at the surface of personality;
these are the publicly held attitudesthe
things we don’t mind telling other people about
ourselves and our views of the world. And
there are some feelings about the self of which
we are aware, but which we do not want to
share with othersthese are the privately held
attitudes to the self. And buried still deeper are
the subconscious and unconscious aspects
feelings about “who” we are and “what” we
are that somehow we cannot face up to, even
to ourselves. The theories of psychoanalysis
and depth psychology deal at length with these
“disassociated” parts of the self, which as
subtly disturbing, often powerful sources of
internal turmoil may affect and hinder a per-
son’s efFective functioning.
BARRIERS AND AIDS T O E M P A T H Y
The individual who has resolved most of
his internal conflicts appears in a better posi-
tion to direct his energies to the understanding
of others. He is likely not to meet “booby
traps” of his own unconscious devising that
prevent accurate perception. The healthy per-
sonality is based upon a fundamental self-
acceptance at all levelspublic to unconscious.
It relies on an openness to experience, a
willingness to respond realistically to relevant
cues; it exhibits a lack of dogmatism and a
capacity for responding to the world flexibly
and dynamically. When we are under pressure,
or in a state of anxiety, we are less likely to
perceive accurately the motives and actions of
those about us. It is only when we have reached
a fair give-and-take balance between ourselves
and the world that we are in a secure position
to venture important human relations judg-
ments.
In light of this, is it likely that in a Nirvana
of perfect psychological equilibrium all social
perceptions would be accurate? On the basis of
what we know, the answer is no. In order to
understand others, there must be some driving
force, some motivation, some problem. Such
cause or problem implies the existence of some
tensions within the perceiver. In a fully tension-
less statein a hypothetical state of perfect
adjustmentthere could be no reason to care
about understanding anything or anybody. As
a result there would be little meaningful social
perception or social interaction. As too many
cooks are said to spoil the broth, too many
tranquilizers seem to spoil the well-springs of
human understanding. X Tiile excess tension
reduces empathy, its complete absence induces
a state of apathy.
T h e Special Case of Self-Insight
Empathy and self-insight tend to go hand
in hand, although the evidence is by no means
all in.” Fortunate, they say, is the individual
who knows how much or how little he truly
knows about himselfwho is aware of his own
capacities, limitations, motivations, and atti-
tudes.
The sole tool that we bring to the task of
understanding others is our own personality.
The cues we receive from the outside must be
processed through the perceptual equipment
that is “us”through lenses of our own back-
ground and expectations. If we are to be suc-
cessful in assessing the meaning of cues that
impinge on us, we must become aware of the
‘ See, for example, J. S. Bruner and R. Tagiuri,
“The Perception of People” in G. Lindzey (editor).
Handbook of Social Psychology, II (Cambridge,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), 645-
646.
42 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
distortions that may be introduced by our
“built-in” perceptual equipment.
A realistic view of our perceptual limita-
tions, and of the kinds of aberrations we tend
to introduce in what we see and hear, should
help us to make allowances in interpreting the
world around us. If, for instance, we are aware
that people who seem to be weak and submis-
sive make us irrationally angry, we may be
able to develop safeguards against our own un-
reasonable anger and ultimately gain a more
realistic understanding of the motivations of
the otlier person.
Self-insight does not come easy. Many fac-
tors mitigate against it. Central among these
is our system of psychological defensesthe
ways in which we systematically and uncon-
sciously protect ourselves from facing what
might be real or imagined threats to our per-
sonal security.
These protective distortionswhich fre-
quently concern our perceptions of others
help us make reality more palatable. There is
no human being alive who is without some
pattern of psychological defenses. Unfortu-
nately, the cost of excessive utilization of de-
fenses is the progressive removal from reality.
Without some controlled and mild forms of
self-delusion, adjustment of the ordinary every-
day sort may be difficult. Yet the defenses that
we bring into play as we seek to understand
ourselves and others seduce us into various
states of unreality; they make us see that which
is not there, and hide that which might be
apparent.
In our illustrations of Mike Corey and Jean
Krugmeier, not much may have been at stake.
However, similar processes, affected by the dis-
tortions of psychological defenses, influence
decisions of major importance: for example,
the selection and promotion of top manage-
ment personnel, the establishment of budgetary
commitments, the theme of advertising cam-
paigns, or the assessment of company perform-
ance.
T h e Force of Attitude
One particularly pervasive pattern of per-
sonal defenses found in industry, which inter-
feres with the process of understanding others,
is characterized by a high degree of authori-
tarianism, with concurrent rigidity in percep-
tion and intolerance for ambiguity. The au-
thoritarian person seems to need to view the
world in clearly defined segments, some strictly
black, others strictly white. He does not make
much room for gradationsthings are clearly
good or abominably bad, people friendly or
hostile, nations with us or against us. Thus,
the authoritarian unconsciously fails to recog-
nize subtle but significant interpersonal phe-
nomena, because he is unable to evaluate
shades of gray for what they are.’ Extreme non-
authoritarian personalities”nothing is defi-
niteall is a matter of shading”also en-
counter difficulties in understanding others
since they too have a singularly single-minded
view of what Uie world and its inhabitants are
like.
The attitudes with which we approach the
task of understanding others, then, do a great
deal to determine just what we will be able to
see. Attitudes basically serve as organizing
forces that order in some preliminary manner
the potential chaos and complexity confront-
ing us. They give meaning to what we are pre-
pared to see and hear. As such, they serve a
necessary and useful function.
“Playing the Odds”
The question of whether the holding of
stereotypes is necessarily detrimental to accur-
ate social perception deserves consideration. If
we define a “stereotype” as an inaccurate per-
ception of a given grouping, it follows logically
that stereotypes are hindrances. But, more gen-
erally, we do need to be able to type people by
means of broad and flexible generalizations.
‘See T. W. Adomo, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J.
Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Per-
sonality (New York: Harper & Bros., 1950).
EMPATHY REVISITED 43
In that sense, a realistic view of a group of
individuals (a kind of “accurate stereotype”)
may increase the odds for accuracy in our per-
ception of others. Thus we may make assump-
tions about the characteristics of a specific
company’s board of directors, about the honor
graduates of a college, or about women secre-
taries. We frame enlightened guesses concern-
ing die manner in which a directive will be
interpreted by first-line supervision, the way
in which a sales campaign on bottled beer will
be received by the housewives in Suburbia, or
how the new profit-sharing plan suggested by
the union’s bargaining committee will strike
the company attorney. This kind of “typing,”
while based upon prior perceptions of indi-
viduals and groups, necessarily is a kind of
oversimplification; still its use in a consciously
wary manner is a constant necessity if we are
to relate to people.
Since understanding people involves relative
probabilities of being right, caution is always
in order. We must ever attempt to remain open
to a constant flow of new information which
may help us alter our perceptions in the light
of changing circumstances. It is the danger of
fossilizationthe pitfall of “hardening” -pei-
ceptions irrationallythat needs to be avoided.
Link Between Perceiver and Perceived
The personality of the perceived also deter-
mines the success of social perception. Ulti-
mately it is the relationship that emerges be-
tween perceiver and perceived s-hich becomes
crucial. Communication linking the twothe
sending and receiving of messages (involving
feelings as well as content)becomes raw ma-
terial underlying the process of understanding
others. Cues are messages from the perceived to
the perceiver. In each instance, the perceiver
“samples” certain small units of behavior that
come from the perceived. While these samples
in a statistical sense are neither random nor
necessarily representative, they form the basis
for generalizations that constitute predictions
about the behavior of others. As communica-
tions develop, a person becomes both perceiver
and perceivedsending and receiving cues
of great variety and with high speed.
In the relationship between perceiver and
perceived it becomes important for the per-
ceiver to elicit cues from the perceived which
will do the most to reveal, on a sample basis,
the relevant aspects of the perceived’s feelings,
thoughts, and potential behavior. This ability
to break through a person’s outer veneer, to
penetrate false fronts, has two facets: (1) the
perceiver’s skill in facilitating the “sending” of
cues by the perceived, and (2) the perceiver’s
skill in picking up and interpreting properly
the cues that have been sent.
Jean Krugmeier, for example, by eliciting
fully the attitudes and aspirations of her job
applicant might have succeeded in bringing to
the surface relevant cues that might have made
possible a more sensible evaluation of his
potential. She might have reduced the appli-
cant’s defensiveness by proving herself recep-
tive to his comments and accepting of him as a
person, by listening for his feelings as well as
meaning, and by communicating to him her
understanding of his point of view.
As we engage in the process of understand-
ing people, our hope for ever increasing ac-
curacy rests partially with our ability to get
feedback on how others view the accuracy of
our perceptions. We must remain in tune with
the reactions of othersnot in order to be-
come blind automata, but rather to double-
check and review the validity of our own per-
ceptions.
T h e Danger of “Expertise”
Usually we receive feedback from members
of our own reference groupsour families,
friends, and business associates. These are the
people whose opinions about us usually matter
to us. Especially parents and close relatives
who have provided us with experiences which
make us what we are often continue to give us,
44 C.’VLIFORMA MANAGEMENT REVIEW
as Robert Bums so aptly put it, “the giftie . . .
to see oorsels as ithers see us.”
At times, the validity of our insights and un-
derstanding of people is assessed by experts,
by psychiatrists or psychologists who have
been trained in personality diagno
