The Perception Process

We take in information through all five senses, but our perceptual field (the world around us) includes so many stimuli that our brains can’t process and make sense of it all. So, as information comes in through our senses, various factors influence what continues 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 salient information. 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 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 & Tayor, 1991). We tend to find salient things visually or aurally stimulating and things that meet our needs or interests. Lastly, expectations affect what we find salient.

Needs and Interests

We also tend to pay attention to information we perceive to meet our needs. This type of selective attention can help us meet instrumental needs and get things done. When you are sitting in a class and an instructor says “This will be on the exam,” you tend to pay close attention to what is being said. Paying close attention to this sort of message is helpful to your need to get a good grade on the exam. 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!” 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. Whether a sign helps 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. Still, 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 doing homework 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 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 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.

Organizing Information

Organizing is the second stage of the perception process, in which we sort and categorize information we selected based on innate and learned cognitive patterns. We sort things into patterns by using proximity, similarity, and difference (Coren, 1980). In terms of proximity, we tend to think that things that are close together go together. For example, have you ever been waiting to be helped in a business and the clerk assumed that you and the person standing beside you were 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.

We also group things based on similarity and difference We tend to think similar-looking or similar-acting things belong together. I have a friend who is about the same height, same race, same hair color, and has similar personality characteristics as me. We do not otherwise look alike but get asked if we are sisters quite often. Despite the fact that many of our other features are different, the salient features are organized based on similarity, and others think we are related. We also organize information that we take in based on differences. In this case, we assume that the item that looks or acts differently from the rest doesn’t belong to the group. Perceptual errors involving people and assumptions of difference can be especially awkward, if not offensive. A caucasian friend of mine adopted a Korean child. More than once people have assumed that the child is not hers because of the difference in race.

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. Remember the pictures in grade school we looked at to determine which things went together and which things didn’t belong? We follow these same strategies if you think of the literal act of organizing something, like your desk at home or work. 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 from personal mail. You may have one drawer for pens, pencils, and other supplies and another for files. In this case, you are grouping items based on similarities and differences. 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 aren’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 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, our judgments on various patterns and categories are not natural; they are learned and culturally and contextually relative. Our perceptual patterns 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). People may assign different causes and effects to the same interaction. 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 a conflict, leading to various 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, to most effectively manage this conflict, the two of them need to communicate that their punctuation, or where the conflict started for each person, 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.

Interpreting Information

Interpreting is the third stage of the perception process. We interpret other people’s behavior daily. Walking to class, you might see an attractive stranger smiling at you. You could interpret this as flirtatious behavior or someone just trying to be friendly. 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 happens when we assign meaning to our experiences using mental structures known as schemata. Schemata are learned 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 information. Scholars have identified factors influencing our interpretations (Adler et al., 1986).

Personal Experience

First, personal experience impacts our interpretation of events. What prior experiences have you had that affect your perceptions? Maybe you heard from your friends that a particular restaurant was really good, but when you went there, you had a horrible experience, and you decided you never wanted to go there again. Even though your friends might try to persuade you to try it again, you might be inclined not to go because your past experience with that restaurant was not good.

Another example might be a traumatic relationship breakup. You might have had a relational partner that cheated on you and left you with trust issues. You might find another romantic interest, but in the back of your mind, you might be cautious and interpret loving behaviors differently because you don’t want to be hurt again.

Involvement

Second, the degree of involvement impacts your interpretation. The more involved or deeper your relationship is with another person, the more likely you will interpret their behaviors differently compared to someone you do not know well. For instance, you are a manager, and two of your employees come to work late. One worker just happens to be your best friend, and the other person is someone who just started, and you do not know them well. You are more likely to interpret your best friend’s behavior more altruistically than the other worker because you have known your best friend for a longer period. Besides, since this person is your best friend, this implies that you interact and are more involved with them compared to other friends.

Expectations

Third, the expectations that we hold can impact the way we make sense of other people’s behaviors. For instance, if you overheard some friends talking about a mean professor and how hostile they are in class, you might expect this to be true. Let’s say you meet the professor and attend their class; you might still have certain expectations about them based on what you heard. Even those expectations might be completely false, and you might still expect those allegations to be true.

Assumptions

Fourth, there are assumptions about human behavior. Imagine if you are a personal fitness trainer. Do you believe that people like to exercise or need to exercise? Your answer to that question might be based on your assumptions. If you are a person who is inclined to exercise, then you might think that all people like to work out. However, if you do not like to exercise but know that people should be physically fit, you would more likely agree with the statement that people need to exercise. Your assumptions about humans can shape the way that you interpret their behavior. Another example might be that if you believe that most people would donate to a worthy cause, you might be shocked to learn that not everyone thinks this way. When we assume that all humans should act a certain way, we are more likely to interpret their behavior differently if they do not respond in a certain way.

Relational Satisfaction

Fifth, relational satisfaction will make you see things very differently. Relational satisfaction is how satisfied or happy you are with your current relationship. If you are content, then you are more likely to view all your partner’s behaviors as thoughtful and kind. However, if you are not satisfied with your relationship, then you are more likely to view their behavior as distrustful or insincere. Research has shown that unhappy couples are more likely to blame their partners when things go wrong compared to happy couples (Diamond & Hicks, 2012).

We have an overall schema about education and how to interpret experiences with teachers and classmates. This schema started developing before we went to preschool based on what 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 varied 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. Such revision takes effort and usually involves 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, suppose 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. In that case, you may avoid giving them presentation responsibilities in your group project because you do not think shy people make good public speakers. How unfortunate if they were the best public speaker in the group and that skill was not put to good use! Schemata also guide our interactions, providing a script for our behaviors. Scripts guide our behaviors in certain situations. 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. We have an idea of what is and is not appropriate to share on a first date. We have general knowledge of how to and how not to behave in a classroom. Even a person who has never been on a game show can develop a schema for how to act in that environment by watching Family Fued.

Schemata are used to interpret others’ behavior and form impressions about who they are as a person. To help this process, we often solicit information from people to help us place them into a preexisting 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, race, and other social and cultural factors. As we continue through the chapter, we will learn more about how culture, gender, and other factors influence our perceptions.

In summary, schemata about individuals, groups, places, and things 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.