El trabajo presenta una nuea perspectiva para el examen de los procesos de percepción interpersonal. Se destaca tanto el interés psicosocial, como las posibilidades clásicas de explicación para estos eventos, of reciéndose al mismo tiempo una explicación alternativa basada en una conception amplia de la toma de decisiones.
Finalmente, se reporta un ejemplo de investigation empírica en proceso, referida específicamente al tema.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdornoT.Erenkel-Brunswick;LevinsonD. J.SandfordR. R. (1950): The Authoritarian PersonalityNew York: Harper and Row.
2.
AllportG. W. (1954): The Nature of PrejudiceCambridge: Addisson Press.
3.
AndersonH. (1965): «Averaging versus Addings as Stimulus Combination Rules in Impression Formation».Journal of Experimental Psychology70: 394–400.
4.
ArkinR. H.DuvalS. (1975). «Focus of Attention and Causal Attributions of Actors and Observers».Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11: 427–438.
5.
AschS. (1946). «Forming Impressions of Personality».Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41: 258–290.
6.
BaronR.GriffittW.ByrneD. (1974). Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction, New York: Allyn Bacon.
7.
BanduraA. (1973). Agression: A Social Learning Analysis.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
8.
BeckerH. (1974). «Labelling Theory Reconsidered». En:RockP.McintocshM. (Eds.) Deviance and Social Control, London: Tavistock.
9.
BerkowitzL. (1974). «Some Determinants of Impulsive Aggression: Role of Mediated Associations with Reinforcements of Aggression». Psychological Review, 81: 165–176.
10.
FishbeinM. (1979). Comunicación personal en Seminario de Investigación.Universidad Central de Venezuela: Caracas.
11.
FriedlandS. J.CrockettW. M.LairdJ. D. (1973). «The Effects of Role and Sex on the Perception of Others».Journal of Social Psychology, 91: 273–283.
12.
JahodaG. (1956). «Political Attitudes and Judgments of Other People».Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49.
13.
JonesE.AronsonE. (1973). «Attribution of Fault to a Rape Victim as a Function of Respectability of the Victim».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26: 415–419.
14.
JonesE.DavisK. (1965). «From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Persons Perception». En:BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social PsychologyNew York: Academic Press.
15.
KelleyH. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their Structures and Processes, Hillsdale, N. J.: L. Erlbaum.
16.
KelleyH. H. (1967) «Attribution Theory in Social Psychology». En: LavinD. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press.
17.
KellyG. (1959). The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton.
18.
KleckB.OnoR.HastorffA. H. (1966). «The Effects of Physical Deviance upon Face to Face Interaction».Human Relations, 19.
19.
KruglanskyA. (1975). «The Endogenous—Exogenous Partition in Attribution Theory».Psychological Review, 52: 387–406.
20.
LernerM. (1971). «Observer Evaluation of a Victim: Justice, Guilt and Veridical Perception».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20.
21.
LivesleyW.BromleyD. (1973). Person Perception in Childhood and Adolescence, London: Free Press.
22.
NisbettR.BorgidaE. I. (1973). «Attribution in the Psychology of Prediction».Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32.
23.
OrantesA. (1979). Dimensiones de la evaluación y factores subjetivos. Presentación en las II Jornadas de Investigación Educativa. Escuela de Educación. Universidad Central de Venezuela. Caracas, 1979.
24.
RodriguesA. (1979). Estudos em Psicologia Social.Petropolis: Vozes.
25.
RodriguesA.FerreiraM. (1968). «Estereotipos em Relacao a Alunos de Psicologia num Campus Universitario».Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia Aplicada, 20: 9–20.
26.
RokeachM.RothmanG. (1965). «The principle of Belief Congruence and the Congruity Principle as Models of Cognitive Interaction».Psychological Review, 72.
27.
RommetveitR. (1960). Selectivity, Intuition and Halo Effects in Social Perception.Oslo: Oslo University Press.
28.
RosenthalR.JacobsonL. F. (1968). «Teacher's Expectations for Disadvantaged».Scientific American, 218: 4.
