·

Impressions Of Others: How They Influence Decisions And How To Regulate Them

Impressions of other people are an input to decision making. It matters what we think of decision stakeholders, who may be involved in providing information to prepare a decision, developing options, giving advice, influencing preferences, implementing decisions, or receiving outcomes. These impressions influence our confidence in the information they provide and the predictions we form about their behavior, which can shape decisions and their outcomes.

For example, in the movie 12 Angry Men (1957), Juror 8 (played by Henry Fonda) challenges the initial impressions of the defendant’s guilt held by the other jurors. Through calm reasoning and careful questioning, Juror 8 gradually shifts the group’s perception, focusing on inconsistencies in the evidence and highlighting the biases influencing their judgments. The example suggests that deliberate and thoughtful communication can influence impressions, leading to better information being used in decision-making, even in emotionally charged situations (Sherif et al., 1961).

This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Decision Governance refers to values, principles, practices designed to improve the quality of decisions. Find all texts on decision governance here, including “What is Decision Governance?” here.

How Do We Form Impressions of Others?

Research in social psychology suggests there are general principles guiding how impressions are formed. These principles, primarily drawn from studies in Europe and North America, may not apply universally but are relevant for understanding this process. The person forming an impression is referred to as the perceiver. Key principles include:

  1. Perception of Coherence: The perceiver assumes the target person is a coherent entity, possessing consistent personality traits across time and contexts. This coherence is often linked to the target’s perceived inherent nature or essence (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996).
  2. Assumptions About Fundamental Qualities: The perceiver draws inferences about the target’s fundamental motivations and constraints based on observed traits and behaviors. These assumptions are informed by the perceiver’s experiences and existing knowledge (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
  3. Consistency in Behavior: The perceiver expects the target’s future behavior to align with past behavior, further reinforcing the impression’s stability (Jones & Davis, 1965).
  4. Integration of Information: The perceiver seeks to combine information about the target into a unified understanding, striving to make sense of disparate observations (Anderson, 1981).
  5. Focus on Inconsistencies: The perceiver pays heightened attention to unexpected or inconsistent behaviors. Such behaviors prompt more effort to reconcile conflicts with existing assumptions (Kunda, 1990).

Understanding these principles allows decision-makers to recognize how impressions form and influence their judgments.

Changing Information to Influence Impressions

To shape the impressions a decision maker forms about others, the information available can be strategically managed:

  1. Highlight Positive Information:
    • Emphasize Strengths: Present detailed accounts of strengths and achievements to foster favorable impressions. Example: Highlight leadership achievements or innovative solutions in a candidate’s profile (Riggio & Friedman, 1986).
    • Use Positive Framing: Frame accomplishments as significant contributions to enhance perceived value. Example: Describe an employee’s role as “pivotal in driving project success” rather than “a contributor.”
  2. Minimize Negative Information:
    • De-emphasize Weaknesses: Reframe or omit less favorable traits where appropriate. Example: Reframe a gap in employment as time spent gaining relevant skills or addressing personal growth.
    • Provide Context: Mitigate negative impressions by explaining circumstances. Example: Attribute missed targets to external factors like market shifts (Forgas, 1995).
  3. Focus on Relevant Information:
    • Tailor Information: Align details with the decision maker’s priorities or criteria. Example: For a leadership role, emphasize examples of team-building and strategic vision (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
    • Organize Information Effectively: Use structured formats to highlight key points. Example: Present achievements in a concise, bullet-point format.
  4. Use Comparisons Wisely:
    • Benchmarking: Compare the individual favorably to others in similar roles. Example: Highlight how the candidate’s metrics exceed industry benchmarks.
    • Highlight Unique Qualities: Showcase distinctive skills or traits that set the individual apart. Example: Emphasize proficiency in niche technical skills (Kunda, 1990).
  5. Leverage Testimonials and Endorsements:
    • Third-Party Validation: Include positive feedback from credible sources. Example: Share testimonials from respected leaders or experts (Sherif et al., 1961).
  6. Manage Presentation and Delivery:
    • Professional Presentation: Ensure information is well-organized and visually appealing. Example: Use polished reports with clear formatting.
    • Emotional Appeal: Incorporate narratives that align with the decision maker’s values. Example: Share a compelling story of overcoming challenges (Forgas, 1995).

By carefully curating the information provided, decision makers can be guided toward forming constructive impressions.

Example: Risks of Impressions in a Service Selection Process

In a firm’s decision-making process for selecting new services to offer, a single decision maker reviews presentations of service proposals from various staff across the firm. This structure creates significant risks due to how impressions of the presenters may influence the decision.

Risks Associated with Presenter Impressions:

  1. Halo Effect: A presenter who is charismatic or confident may leave a disproportionately positive impression, causing the decision maker to favor their proposal, even if the content is weaker. Example: A staff member with a polished speaking style might overshadow another with better data but less engaging delivery.
  2. Primacy Effect: The decision maker may give undue weight to the first presenter’s proposal, setting a benchmark that biases evaluations of subsequent proposals. Example: If the first presentation highlights profitability, the decision maker might undervalue later proposals focusing on long-term strategic benefits.
  3. Confirmation Bias: Once the decision maker forms an initial impression of a presenter’s competence, they may seek information that supports this perception, ignoring evidence to the contrary. Example: If the decision maker views a presenter as an expert, they may overlook gaps or flaws in the proposal.

Strategies to Reduce Negative Impacts:

  1. Standardized Presentation Templates: Require all presenters to use a standardized format that ensures uniformity in presenting key data, such as market analysis, feasibility studies, and financial projections. Example: Each proposal includes the same sections, such as “Projected Costs,” “Market Potential,” and “Risk Assessment.”
  2. Anonymous Proposal Reviews: Remove presenter identities during the initial review of proposals to ensure that evaluations focus on the content rather than the presenter. Example: Assign numerical IDs to proposals and have a neutral party present them.
  3. Scoring Rubrics: Develop and use a detailed scoring rubric for evaluating proposals based on pre-established criteria such as innovation, feasibility, alignment with strategic goals, and potential ROI. Example: A rubric with weighted scores (e.g., 30% feasibility, 40% ROI) ensures consistency.
  4. Panel Evaluation: Incorporate multiple evaluators into the process to diversify perspectives and dilute individual biases. Example: A panel of representatives from finance, operations, and marketing reviews and scores each proposal independently.
  5. Training on Bias Awareness: Provide training for decision makers on common biases, such as the halo effect and primacy effect, to improve awareness and promote objective assessments. Example: A workshop that includes role-playing scenarios to identify and counteract biases during evaluations.

By implementing these changes, the firm can reduce the undue influence of subjective impressions and make decisions based on the merits of the proposals.

Reducing Subjective Impressions in Decision Processes

To reduce the impact of subjective impressions in decision-making processes, organizations can implement the following strategies:

  1. Educate Stakeholders:
    • Explain Consistency and Inconsistency:
      • Emphasize the role of consistent behavior in forming impressions.
      • Plan for intentional inconsistencies if changing perceptions is necessary. Example: Encourage employees to take on visible roles to shift negative perceptions (Jones & Davis, 1965).
  2. Standardize Evaluation Criteria:
    • Use Quantifiable Metrics: Implement clear, measurable criteria for assessments. Example: Use a scoring rubric for evaluating candidates’ leadership and technical skills.
    • Create Rubrics: Develop detailed scorecards to guide evaluations. Example: Define specific benchmarks for each competency area (Anderson, 1981).
  3. Increase Transparency:
    • Document Decisions: Keep detailed records of evaluation criteria and decision rationales.
    • Share Criteria: Make evaluation standards accessible to stakeholders to ensure accountability (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996).
  4. Implement Structured Processes:
    • Frameworks and Procedures: Use tools like decision matrices or SWOT analysis to systematize evaluations. Example: Rate options on predefined dimensions like feasibility and impact (Sherif et al., 1961).
  5. Encourage Diverse Perspectives:
    • Involve Multiple Evaluators: Leverage team evaluations to counteract individual biases. Example: Use panel interviews with diverse participants (Kunda, 1990).
    • Seek External Input: Include feedback from external experts. Example: Engage industry consultants to provide assessments.
  6. Reduce Emotional Influence:
    • Separate Personal and Professional Views: Encourage evaluators to focus on data rather than personal impressions.
    • Blind Reviews: Remove identifying information during evaluations. Example: Conduct blind reviews of project proposals (Forgas, 1995).
  7. Promote Awareness of Biases:
    • Training and Checklists: Provide bias awareness training and tools to help evaluators recognize potential pitfalls. Example: Use a checklist to review for biases before finalizing decisions (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
References and Further Reading
  • Hamilton, David L., and Steven J. Sherman. “Perceiving persons and groups.” Psychological review 103.2 (1996): 336.
  • Forgas, Joseph P. “Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM).” Psychological bulletin 117.1 (1995): 39.
  • Riggio, Ronald E., and Howard S. Friedman. “Impression formation: The role of expressive behavior.” Journal of personality and social psychology 50.2 (1986): 421.
  • Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E. Taylor. Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage, 1991.
  • Kunda, Ziva. “The case for motivated reasoning.” Psychological bulletin 108.3 (1990): 480.
  • Jones, Edward E., and Keith E. Davis. “From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception.” Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 2. Academic Press, 1965. 219-266.
  • Anderson, Norman H. Foundations of information integration theory. Academic Press, 1981.
  • Sherif, Muzafer, et al. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University Book Exchange, 1961.
Decision Governance

This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Other texts on the same topic are linked below.

  1. Introduction to Decision Governance
    1. What is Decision Governance?
    2. What Is a High Quality Decision?
    3. When is Decision Governance Needed?
    4. When is Decision Governance Valuable?
    5. How Much Decision Governance Is Enough?
    6. Are Easy Options the Likely Choice?
    7. Can Decision Governance Be a Source of Competitive Advantage?
  2. Stakeholders of Decision Governance
    1. Who Is Responsible for Decision Governance in a Firm?
    2. Who are the Stakeholders of Decision Governance?
    3. What Interests Do Stakeholders Have in Decision Governance?
    4. What the Organizational Chart Says about Decision Governance
  3. Foundations of Decision Governance
    1. How to Spot Decisions in the Wild?
    2. When Is It Useful to Reify Decisions?
    3. Decision Governance Is Interdisciplinary
    4. Individual Decision-Making: Common Models in Economics
    5. Group Decision-Making: Common Models in Economics
    6. Individual Decision-Making: Common Models in Psychology
    7. Group Decision-Making: Common Models in Organizational Theory
  4. Design of Decision Governance
    1. The Design Space for Decision Governance
    2. Decision Governance Concepts: Situations, Actions, Commitments and Decisions
    3. Decision Governance Concepts: Outcomes to Explanations
  5. Role of Explanations in Design:
    1. Explaining Decisions
    2. Simple & Intuitive Models of Decision Explanations
    3. Max(Utility) from Variety & Taste
    4. Expected Uncertainty to Unexpected Utility
    5. Perceptiveness & Experience Shape Rapid Choices
  6. Design Parameters:
    1. Attention: Attention Depends on Stimuli & Goals
    2. Memory: Selective Memory Can Be Desirable
    3. Emotions: Emotions Mediate Decisions Always and Everywhere
    4. Temporal Distance: Why Perception of Long Term Outcomes Should Be Influenced First?
    5. Social Distance: Increased Social Distance (Over)Simplifies Explanations
    6. Detail: Level of Detail Can Influence Probability Estimates
  7. Change of Decision Governance
    1. What is the Role of Public Policy in Decision Governance?
    2. Dynamics of Public Policy Development
    3. How Does Public Policy Influence Decision-Making?
    4. Adapting a Decision Process to Comply with a Policy
    5. How a Decision Process Can Create Evidence of Compliance
    6. Incrementalism: What it is, and when/how to implement it in decision governance
    7. Punctuated Equilibrium: How to know if a Decision Process is ready for disruption
    8. Policy Windows: What They Are And When They Occur