Approaches to impression formation

Social categories and social schemas are not simply vague cognitive constructs. Formed as we encounter new people, they are exploited as raw materials in the process of impression formation. Concerning social cognition, and specifically, person

perception, Zebrowitz (1990) assumes that two alternatives as two extreme ends of a scale are distinguishable, each of which explains one strategy of social perception: 1. ‘Constructivist models’ or ‘theory-driven approaches’ that emphasise top-down processing and maintain that impressions are formed based on the perceivers’ existing social schemas or stereotypes.

2. ‘Structuralist models’ or fully ‘attribute-oriented approaches’, which emphasise bottom-up or data-driven processes. Such models assume that impressions are formed based on the perceiver’s social category schema relating to a person’s individual attributes. In these models, the emphasis is placed on specific textual cues.

Thus, these models’ schematic (top-down) and categorical (bottom-up) approaches place them in complete isolation from each other. However, more recent trends in impression formation models, notably Fiske and Neuberg (1990), have tried to combine the social category membership and the stereotypic characteristics of social schema together with individual attributes of a target person in a processing model. In such models, impression is settled between fully bottom-up, category-based and fully top-down, individuating impressions. Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990) continuum model of impression formation integrates both cognitive processes – in which towards one end are category-based and stereotypic processes that use a target category membership – and towards the other end, are the individuating processes that target particular attributes of a character. Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990) continuum implies that the distinction between these two processes is a matter of degree and the model gives priority to category-based processes over attribute-oriented ones as ‘perceivers attempt category-based impression formation before they use more attribute-oriented impression formation’ (p. 2). If category-oriented processes do not fit or suffice to form an impression of a target person, perceivers move forward and pay more attention to the individual’s attributes to form an encompassing, gestalt impression. Fiske and Neuberg (1990:6-8) suggest four stages on the continuum from category-based to person-based impression:

1. The initial categorization stage occurs immediately upon encountering an individual. It includes ‘primitive categories’ and accomplishes categorization according

to ‘visually prominent physical features’1 (Fiske and Taylor, 1991:121, see also 2.5.3). A target person’s physical appearance often cues stereotypes. Fiske and Neuberg (1990) also believe that ‘many of the most pervasive social categories (e.g. race, age, class) are functions of easily perceived physical features’ (p. 121).

2. If the information fits the initial categorization, the perceiver retains the initial categorization, and then ‘confirmatory categorization’ may happen.

3. When the information does not confirm the initial categorization, ‘recategorization’ occurs which attempts to find a new category or subcategory.

4. When the information gathered about a particular individual does not meaningfully fit any category or when the perceiver cannot meaningfully categorise an individual according to stereotypes, ‘piecemeal integration’ occurs. As the most individualizing stage, this involves adding up the target person’s characteristics in order to form an impression of them.

In Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990) continuum model, the perceiver can continuously loop back to the beginning of the impression-formation process until they decide that no more assessment is needed. This model was originally proposed to describe impression formation in real-life people, however, it can, to some extent, be applied to fictional characters based on the present study’s initial argument that there is a great resemblance between the cognitive processes associated with our impression formation of real people and fictional characters

2.6.1 Impression formation of fictional characters

First impressions of characters are guided by the cognitive model offered by social categories and social schemas. This social knowledge, once activated, offers a ‘scaffolding for incoming character information’ (Culpeper, 2001:86). So, our

1 _{Fiske and Taylor (1991:121) also argue that the features indicating race, sex, and the like allow people}

to sort others into categories more rapidly than they could otherwise. Because they are physically perceptible and culturally meaningful, physical features have priority over other features.

knowledge about real-life people and the process through which we understand them is the primary source of insight in understanding characters. This means that social categories (personal, social roles, and group membership) form the basis of our first impressions of characters. People begin to categorise (social) instances in order to apply the relevant schemas. In other words, the process of categorization is followed by applying social schemas to the social categories.

Fiske and Neuberg’s (1991) model is highly consistent with Forster’s (1987) ‘flat’ and ‘round’ character distinction. Flat characters are constructed around a single idea or quality and are easily recognizable. Because of their simplicity, the viewer’s impression of such characters is formed at the initial stages of the impression formation model. Visual attributes together with their plain pragmalinguistic behaviour help viewer to group them in related social categories and then apply the relevant social schema (stereotypes). Categorising round characters is much more complicated due to their complex and sometimes paradoxical attributes – viewers must attend to characters’ individual traits rather than their group membership attributes in order to make impressions. They may need to place a round character down at the other end of the continuum – that of attribute-oriented impressions.

Here, an important issue must be addressed with regard to the discrete categories assigned to Foster’s flat/round characters: it is impossible to draw a line and place a particular character at one extreme of the continuum. Culpeper (2001:56) suggests that the distinction between flat/round characters is better if conceived as a sliding scale which allows for ‘more subtle gradation of characters’. From this view, factors such as ‘complexity, change, conflict and inner life’ are associated with a character’s roundness. Understanding such dimensions requires perceivers to pay attention to subtle personal traits in order to make an attribute-based impression. Against roundness, flatness is associated with the opposite of these factors: ‘simplicity, stasis, immunity from conflict, and external life’. Accordingly, the first two stages of this continuum (categorization and recategorization) are sufficient to make impressions about flat characters.

Another dimension of round/flat characters is the notion of staticism/change. According to Culpeper (2001), flat characters, as easy-to-categorise characters, imply a lack of change although the piecemeal integration of individualised characters does imply change (p. 94).

From the schema theory viewpoint, the dimension of a character’s staticism/change is also related to Cook’s (1994) and Jeffries’ (2001) proposal that

literary texts are primarily distinguished by their schema refreshing/changing function. Regarding characterization, according to Culpeper (2001:94), flat characters are typically schema reinforcing, meaning that they strengthen viewers’ schema whereas round characters are typically schema refreshing, meaning that they cause schema disruption. So, it can be claimed that round characters are typically a feature of literary texts as they often provide sufficient space for character development.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that fictional characters are distinguished by some ‘fiction-like idiosyncrasy’ (Harvey, 1965, cited in Culpeper, 2001), meaning that dramatic characters are distorted prototypically, so they do not exhibit prototypical behaviour related to the particular social category of the role they are acting out. Such a claim can be confirmed by Abbas Kiarostami’s words in an interview (1997). He believes that the non-prototypicality of characters is significant for film narrative and suggests that the extraordinariness of fictional characters is a director’s inherent necessity:

It is said that my characters are all abnormal and they deviate from the norms in some way, from the child in the movie the Traveller, to Mr Sabzian in Close-up […]. I realized that unintentionally I draw to non- prototypical people. But this is not just my case. Since we cannot put every ordinary person in front of the camera. We have to look for special people or ordinary people in special circumstances.

Kiarostami’s account is also related to Culpeper’s conviction that characters are perceived as exaggerated prototypes if they fail to exhibit contextually sensitive behaviour or they simply appear in situations where they are not expected (2001:89). The effect of exaggerating the prototypicality of the characters in some genres, such as comedy, can create dramatic effect and humour.

With regard to RQ 6 concerning the plausible cognitive process of model viewers’ overall impression of characters, the continuum of impression formation theoretically related to their social plane. In other words, viewers’ plausible understanding of the characters’ social aspects (including their social roles, relations and attributes) is achieved by means of social schemas, social categories and their activation in the continuum of impression formation. However, the overall impression of character is also contingent to understanding the pragmalinguistic and cinematic aspects by means of pragmalinguistic and film schemas, which – together with social aspects – result in the formation of an overall impression.

As discussed in the introduction, the first plane of this research’s suggested model for character impression formation entails social knowledge in terms of social schemas (stereotypes). The second plane deals with the medium-specific elements; the knowledge of film style and techniques which cognitively accumulate in the course of viewer’s encounters with a variety of films. The next section deals with film schema and its components.