Crisp-3485-Chapter-02.

qxd

10/12/2006

8:49 PM

Page

CHAPTER 2

SOCIAL COGNITION
Contents
Social Inference The Nave Scientist Attribution theor !a"in# Attributions Attributional $iases The Co#nitive !iser Heuristics The !otivate% Tactician Social Cate#ori&ation $asic Princi'les (h )o (e Cate#ori&e* (hen )o (e Cate#ori&e* Conse+uences of Cate#ori&ation )ual Process Theories

Social Co#nition

,-

Social Co#nition
This cha'ter is about ho. 'eo'le thin" about other 'eo'le/ Social cognition is a broa% ter0 that %escribes a focus on the .a 'erceivers enco%e1 'rocess1 re0e0ber1 an% use infor0ation in social conte2ts in or%er to 0a"e sense of other 'eo'le3s behavior 4.here a social context is %efine% as an real or i0a#ine% scenario inclu%in# reference to self or others5/ (e have 'lace% this cha'ter on social co#nition near the start of the boo" because it is central to 0an of the other cha'ters later on/ The .a that .e or#ani&e an% use social infor0ation is an essential ele0ent in our un%erstan%in# of inter#rou' an% inter'ersonal 'rocesses1 social i%en6 tit an% 're7u%ice1 attitu%es an% confor0it / $elo. .e .ill e2a0ine the strate#ies an% the shortco0in#s of social inference1 the .a in .hich .e cate#ori&e others an% use co#nitive 8shortcuts9 to clarif an% un%erstan% all of the infor0ation that constantl bo0bar%s our senses/ (e .ill see ho. an un%erstan%in# of social thou#ht has evolve% fro0 seein# 'eo'le as onl col%1 lo#ical an% rational infor0ation 'rocessors1 to a reco#nition that .e are often incline% to #o on 8#ut feelin#9 an% 8intuition9 .hen 0a"in# 7u%#0ents about others/

SOCIAL IN:ERENCE
The Nave Scientist
Let us be#in .ith co00on sense/ Hu0ans are rationale creatures; .e are able to solve co06 'le2 0athe0atical 'roble0s1 use so'histicate% lo#ic to construct ar#u0ents1 an% .e are co#ent1 balance%1 an% anal tical/ It shoul% therefore follo. that .e a''l these 'rinci'les to ever %a social thou#ht an% action/ This .as the vie. of social co#nition that characteri&e% earl theori&in#/ This hi#hl influential vie. .as 'resente% b Hei%er 4<-=>51 .ho ar#ue% that 'eo'le are 0otivate% b t.o 'ri0ar nee%s? <5 the nee% to for0 a coherent vie. of the .orl% an% 25 the nee% to #ain control over the environ0ent/ Hei%er believe% that this %esire for consistenc an% stabilit 1 the abilit to 're%ict an% control1 0a"es us behave li"e naive scientists1 rationall an% lo#icall testin# our h 'otheses about the behavior of others/ In 'ar6 ticular1 this nee% to attribute causes to effects 4for e2a0'le1 observe% behaviors an% events5 an% to create a 0eanin#ful1 stable .orl% .here thin#s 0a"e sense .as the basis for a theo6 retical a''roach that beca0e hi#hl influential in ho. social 's cholo#ists vie.e% social co#nition/ This set of i%eas an% 0o%els can be referre% to as attribution theory/

Attribution theor
Hei%er 4<-=>5 believe% that .e have a basic nee% to attribute causalit because this ascribes 0eanin# to our .orl%1 0a"in# it clear1 %efinable1 an% 're%ictable1 thereb re%ucin# uncertaint / This nee%1 Hei%er ar#ue%1 is a 0a7or %rivin# force in hu0an social inference/ A clever

@A

Essential Social Ps cholo#

- Participants were asked to interpret a moving picture- film in which three geometric figures (a large triangle, a small triangle, and a disc) were shown moving in various directions and at various speeds in and around a rectangle which could be opened or closed with a door. - Out of ! participants, onl" one participant described the film in geometrical terms (e.g., # large triangle enters a rectangle and moves around. - #ll other participants described the movements of actions of animate beings, mostl" humans but, in two cases, as birds. - $%ample response& # man has planned to meet a girl and the girl comes along with another man. 'he first man tells the second to go. 'he second man shakes his head. 'hen the two men have a fight.

:i#ure 2/<

An illustration of the 'icture6fil0 use% in the Hei%er an% Si00el 4<-@@5 stu%

e2'eri0ent illustrate% this basic nee%/ Hei%er an% Si00el 4<-@@5 as"e% 'artici'ants to si0'l %escribe the 0ove0ent of abstract #eo0etric sha'es/ The foun% a #eneral ten6 %enc to %escribe the 0ove0ent in .a s in%icative of hu0an intentions an% 0otives 4see :i#ure 2/<5/ This rea%iness to ascribe hu0an intentionalit to thin#s that .e "no. have lit6 tle or no ca'acit for such intention is a co00on characteristic of ho. .e thin" 47ust thin" about ho. 'eo'le tal" to their 'ets as if the can un%erstan% the05/

T 'es of Attribution
This a''arent %esire to attribute causalit .as the basis for a #reat %eal of .or" that atte0'te% to 0o%el the .a s in .hich hu0ans tr to e2'lain the actions of the0selves an% others/ To un%erstan% these 0o%els .e first nee% to %efine %ifferent t 'es of attribution/ (e can refer to this as %efinin# the locus of causality/ The 0ain %istinction that can be 0a%e bet.een t 'es of attribution is internal6e2ternal/ An internal attribution is an e2'lanation that locates the cause as bein# internal to the 'erson such as 'ersonalit 1 0oo%1 abilities1 attitu%es1 an% effort 4also "no.n as a 'erson attribution5/ An external attribution is an e2'lanation that locates the cause as bein# e2ternal to the 'er6 son such as the actions of others1 the nature of the situation1 social 'ressures1 or luc" 4also "no. as a situation attribution5/ I0a#ine ou are in a su'er0ar"et1 an% at the chec"out the assistant is ru%e to ou/ Ho. %o ou e2'lain his behavior* Given that ou %o not "no. hi0 or1 to be 0ore 'recise1 ou %on3t have access to his thou#hts an% feelin#s1 ou can onl infer a cause fro0 his behavior/ Bou 0i#ht co0e to the conclusion that he is a ru%e an% un'leas6 ant 'erson 4a %is'ositional1 internal attribution5/ Alternativel 1 ou 0i#ht thin" he is 7ust

Social Co#nition @< havin# a ba% %a C 0a be he has 7ust ha% an ar#u0ent .ith his 'artner 4a situational attri6 bution5/ Si0ilarl 1 i0a#ine our colle#e 'rofessor is in a 'articularl #oo% 0oo% in class one %a C sin#in#1 7o"in# C behavior that is %efinitel %ifferent fro0 the nor0/ )o ou thin" her 'ersonalit 0i#ht have su%%enl chan#e% 4a %is'ositional attribution51 or .oul% ou infer so0e other cause 4'erha's she has 7ust #ot a 'a'er acce'te% to a lea%in# 7ournal51 a situa6 tional cause/ (e .ill %iscuss ho. 'eo'le arrive at either of these %ifferent t 'es of attribu6 tion later on1 but for no. it is 7ust i0'ortant to note that there are fun%a0entall t.o %ifferent .a s that behavior can be e2'laine%? b internal or b e2ternal causes/ As .ell as this fun%a0ental %istinction bet.een internal an% e2ternal attributions1 it is 'ossible to further sub6%ivi%e t 'es of inference alon# t.o other in%e'en%ent %i0ensions? stability an% controllability 4(einer1 <->2; <->D5/ Stabilit refers to the e2tent to .hich causes are relativel stable an% 'er0anent 4e/#/ natural abilit 5 versus te0'orar an% fluctuatin# 4e/#/ bein# %run"5/ Controllabilit refers to the e2tent to .hich causes can be influence% b others 4e/#/ effort5 versus the e2tent to .hich the are ran%o0 4e/#/ luc"5/ To#ether1 these three %i0ensions a''ear to be the t 'ical .a s in .hich 'eo'le e2'lain events 4!e er E Foebl1 <->25 in both in%ivi%ualist an% collectivist countries 4Hau E Salili1 <--<5/ Ho.ever1 for our 'ur'oses1 .e onl nee% to focus on the 0ost co00on an% clearest %istinction? internal versus e2ternal causes/ Ho. 'eo'le arrive at either an internal or e2ternal attribution is the focus of the ne2t section/

!a"in# Attributions
In the 'revious section .e classifie% the t 'es of attribution 'eo'le can 0a"e1 the conclusions that .e can arrive at .hen tr in# to e2'lain so0eone else3s behavior/ $ut ho. %o 'eo'le reach that conclusion1 .hat are the thou#ht 'rocesses involve%* This is .hat social cognition is all about/ In this section .e %iscuss the t.o 0ain 0o%els of attribution 'rocess that e0er#e% fro0 research in the <-GA3s? Correspondent Inference Theory an% the Co-variation Model/

Corres'on%ent Inference Theor

Accor%in# to Hones an% )avis 4<-D=51 .hen 0a"in# social inferences 'eo'le try to 0a"e a corres'on%ent inference/ In other .or%s1 the ten% to infer that the action of an actor corres'on%s to1 or is in%icative of1 a stable 'ersonalit characteristic/ The i%ea is that 'eo'le prefer internal1 %is'ositional attributions over e2ternal1 situation attributions because the for0er t 'e of "no.le%#e is 0ore valuable .ith re#ar% to 0a"in# 're%ictions about behavior/ A %is'ositional attribution such as 8ru%e9 is a 7u%#0ent that the 'erson in +uestion has a 'articular set of 'ersonalit attributes1 .hich are assu0e% to be stable an% %o not chan#e over ti0e/ In contrast a situation attribution C such as e2'lainin# behavior as bein# %o.n to a transitor 0oo% C is b %efinition a variable an% chan#eable cause/ The for0er1 bein# stable an% unchan#in#1 is a 0uch 0ore valuable conclusion 4if vali%5 for 're6 %ictin# future behavior/ :or e2a0'le1 attributin# a sho' assistant3s ru%eness to an internal cause C his #ru0' 'ersonalit C is useful because .e can then assu0e he .ill al.a s be

@2

Essential Social Ps cholo# #ru0' .hen .e visit the sho'1 an% so .e shoul% avoi% his till/ If .e can fin% %is'ositional causes for behavior these hel' us to fulfil .hat Hei%er 4<-=>5 ar#ue% is our basic %rive to.ar%s coherence an% clarit 1 stabilit an% a 're%ictable .orl%/ Accor%in# to Hones an% )avis 4<-D=5 .e assess .hether there is a corres'on%ence bet6 .een behavior an% 'ersonalit 4i/e/ arrive at a corres'on%ent inference or1 in other .or%s1 a %is'ositional attribution5 b 'rocessin# three "e t 'es of infor0ation? social desirability, choice1 an% non-common effects/ Social desirability infor0ation refers to .hether the behavior observe% is consistent .ith1 or counter to1 social nor0s/ An internal1 %is'ositional attribution is 0ore li"el .hen sociall un%esirable behaviors are observe%/ Peo'le have a ten%enc to #o alon# .ith social nor0s C to a%here to the 0a7orit vie.'oint C because the .ish to avoi% e2clusion an% ri%icule for stan%in# out an% bein# %ifferent fro0 the cro.% 4.e %iscuss this nor0ative social influence in %etail in Cha'ter =5/ As such1 behavior that is sociall %esirable %oes not tell us 0uch about 'eo'le3s 'ersonalities because the 0a si0'l be #oin# alon# .ith the #rou' nor01 .hich 0a or 0a not coinci%e .ith their o.n 'ersonal 'oint of vie./ In contrast1 so0eone .ho e2hibits sociall un%esirable behavior C .ho #oes a#ainst the social nor0 C is 0uch 0ore li"el to be %is'la in# behavior that corres'on%s to an un%erl in# 'ersonalit trait1 because the behavior cannot be attribute% to the 'erson si0'l confor0in# to the 0a7orit / Accor%in# to Hones an% )avis1 another t 'e of infor0ation that social 'erceivers see" in or%er to 0a"e a corres'on%ent inference is .hether the behavior in +uestion .as freel chosen or not/ An internal1 %is'ositional attribution is 0ore li"el .hen the 'erson bein# observe% has freely chosen the #iven behavior/ A#ain1 this 0a"es a lot of sense; if behav6 ior has been freel chosen then it is 0uch 0ore li"el to be the result of an un%erl in# 'er6 sonalit characteristic or attitu%e1 rather than a result of coercion1 threat1 or in%uce0ents/ (hen a behavior has a uni+ue conse+uence1 rather than havin# a ran#e of 'ossible other conse+uences1 .e can refer to it as havin# non-common effects/ An internal1 %is'ositional attribution is 0ore li"el .hen the outco0e of a behavior has a uni+ue 4or non6co00on5 effect/ :or instance1 a 'unch has reall onl one 'ossible outco0e so it is 0ore li"el to be attribute% to an internal1 %is'ositional cause/ Althou#h there is so0e evi%ence to su''ort the i%ea that 'eo'le use these three t 'es of infor0ation outline% above to attribute causalit to others3 behavior 4e/#/ Hones E Harris1 <-DG51 ulti0atel the theor has %ecline% in 'o'ularit %ue to so0e clear li0itations/ In 'articular1 the 0o%el is li0ite% to single instances of behavior an% focuses on internal attributions/ The latter 'oint is es'eciall i0'ortant/ It is ver eas to thin" of the 0an ti0es that .e have 'ut so0e6 one3s behavior %o.n to ba% luc"1 or the0 havin# a ba% %a / Peo'le clearl an% consistentl 0a"e e2ternal attributions as .ell as internal/ The 0o%el .e turn to ne2t %irectl a%%resses these li0itations an% is ar#uabl the 0ost influential of the attribution theories/

The Co6variation !o%el

Felle 3s 4<-DG5 co6variation 0o%el accounts for multiple behaviors/ I0'ortantl 1 it also %etails the 'rocesses that result in external as .ell as internal attributions/ Accor%in# to Felle 1 causalit is attribute% usin# the co-variation principle/ This 'rinci'le states that for so0ethin# to be the cause of a 'articular behavior it 0ust be present .hen the

Social Co#nition

@,

behavior is present an% absent .hen the behavior is absent 4i/e/1 it 0ust covar 5/ :ro0 0ulti'le 'otential causes .e ascribe causalit to the one that co-varies .ith the behavior to the #reatest e2tent C actin#1 as Hei%er 4<-=>5 .oul% sa 1 e2actl li"e nave scientists/ The co6variation 0o%el states that three t 'es of infor0ation are crucial for arrivin# at an internal or e2ternal attribution? consensus, consistency1 an% distinctiveness infor0ation/ (hen observin# so0eone3s behavior in a 'articular social conte2t1 the co0bine% i0'act of these three t 'es of infor0ation .ill %eter0ine .hat t 'e of attribution is 0a%e/ Consensus infor0ation is the e2tent to .hich other 'eo'le in the scene react in the sa0e .a as the tar#et 'erson/ Consistency infor0ation is the e2tent to .hich the tar#et 'erson reacts in the sa0e .a on %ifferent occasions/ Distinctiveness infor0ation is the e2tent to .hich the tar#et 'erson reacts in the sa0e .a in other social conte2ts 4see :i#ure 2/25/
TBPE O: IN:OR!ATION Consensus infor0ation The e2tent to .hich the tar#et an% au%ience behave in the sa0e .a Consistenc infor0ation

The e2tent to .hich the tar#et behaves in the sa0e .a on %ifferent occasions

)istinctiveness infor0ation

The e2tent to .hich the tar#et behaves in the sa0e .a in other situations

Note? )is'ositional attribution An e2'lanation that locates the cause as bein# internal to the 'erson 4'ersonalit 1 0oo%1 attitu%es1 abilities1 effort5 Situational attribution An e2'lanation that locates the cause as bein# e2ternal to the 'erson 4actions of others1 the nature of the situation1 luc"5

:i#ure 2/2 Felle 3s co6variation 0o%el? Isin# consensus1 consistenc an% %istinctiveness infor0ation to e2'lain .h our 'rofessor is .earin# a %o%# s.eater

@@ Essential Social Ps cholo# In%e'en%entl 1 the 'resence or absence of each of these t 'es of infor0ation has i0'li6 cations for .hether a %is'ositional or situational attribution .ill be 0ore li"el / The 'resence of consensus infor0ation 4if ever one else is behavin# in the sa0e .a as the tar#et 'erson5 i0'lies a situational cause1 .hereas the absence of consensus infor0ation i0'lies a %is'ositional cause/ The 'resence of consistenc infor0ation 4the tar#et 'erson behaves in the sa0e .a over an% over a#ain5 i0'lies a %is'ositional cause1 .hile the absence of consistenc infor0ation i0'lies a situational cause/ The 'resence of %istinctiveness infor6 0ation 4the tar#et 'erson acts in the sa0e .a in 0an %ifferent conte2ts5 i0'lies a %is'osi6 tional cause1 but the absence of %istinctiveness infor0ation i0'lies a situational cause/ Here3s an e2a0'le to illustrate/ I0a#ine ou are sittin# in class one %a an% our 'rofes6 sor .al"s in .earin# an unusual an% 'articularl #arish 0ulti6colore% s.eater1 s'ortin# on its front a 'icture of a lar#e ha'' ba%#er/ As nave scientists .e li"e to have a stable an% 're%ictable .orl%1 so ou .oul% be co0'elle% to tr to fi#ure out .h our 'rofessor has chosen to .ear such a stran#e #ar0ent/ Accor%in# to the co6variation 0o%el1 ou .oul% assess .hether the three t 'es of infor0ation outline% above are 'resent or absent/ :irst? consensus/ Is ever one .earin# the sa0e t 'e of s.eater or is it onl our 'ro6 fessor* If it is onl our 'rofessor ou3re li"el to be#in to 0a"e an internal1 %is'ositional attribution? no6one else is behavin# in the sa0e .a 4i/e/ .earin# a stran#e s.eater51 so the cause of this stran#e behavior is li"el to be so0ethin# uni+uel to %o .ith our 'rofes6 sor1 an% not the situation 4other.ise other 'eo'le .oul% also be affecte% b .hatever the cause 0i#ht be C such as a ne. fashion C an% .oul% also be .earin# a %o%# s.eater5/ Secon%? consistenc / Is this the first ti0e our 'rofessor has .orn this s.eater1 or %oes he %o it ever .ee"* If he .ears this .eir% s.eater ever .ee"1 then ou3re #oin# to be even 0ore incline% to 0a"e a %is'ositional attribution/ If he is onl .earin# it this .ee" then ou 0i#ht thin" he3s havin# onl a te0'orar fashion crisis C 'erha's his .ashin# 0achine has bro"en 4a situational attribution5 an% the 'eculiar s.eater is the onl one he has left that is clean/ Thir%? %istinctiveness/ )oes our 'rofessor .ear this s.eater in %ifferent classes* )o ou see hi0 aroun% ca0'us s'ortin# si0ilarl ill6a%vise% s.eaters* If ou %o1 a#ain ou3re #oin# to be 0ore incline% to 0a"e a %is'ositional attribution 4i/e/ our 'rofessor has chronic fashion 'roble0s1 or 'erha's an en%urin# ba%#er fi2ation5/ This is because the behavior is not %istinctive to the current situation 4.hich .oul% 0a"e it li"el that it is so0ethin# in the i00e%iate conte2t that is 0a"in# our 'rofessor .ear the s.eater5/ In su01 if our 'rofessor .ears ba% ba%#er s.eaters consistentl over ti0e an% in %if6 ferent conte2ts1 an% he is the onl 'erson to be %oin# so1 then ou3re #oin# to 0a"e a %is6 'ositional attribution an% conclu%e that he has terrible fashion sense 4or a ba%#er fi2ation5/ $ut an .a 1 enou#h of the authors3 fashion %ile00as1 bac" to attribution theor J It is i0'ortant to note that the 'attern of 'resence or absence across the three t 'es of infor0ation is not al.a s as clear6cut as in the above illustration/ The .a the infor6 0ation is co0bine% is not si0'l a%%itive1 but %e'en%s on an interaction of the %ifferent ele0ents/ The i0'ortant 'oint here is that 'eo'le reall are actin# li"e nave scientists if the attribute causalit in this .a ? see"in# out an% assessin# these three t 'es of infor6 0ation1 then .ei#hin# the0 all u' to conclu%e either an internal or e2ternal attribution/ There is evi%ence that1 .hen #iven all the relevant infor0ation1 an% the ti0e .ithin .hich to 0a"e a 7u%#0ent1 'eo'le can 0a"e attributional %ecisions in the .a outline% b

Social Co#nition

@=

Felle 3s co6variation 0o%el 4Fassin1 <-G-; !cArthur1 <-G25/ Ho.ever1 the 0o%el a''ears to be far fro0 bein# universall a''licable/ :or instance1 .hile 'eo'le %o use all three t 'es of infor0ation1 the are not e+uall atten%e% to 4Chen1 Bates1 E !cGinnies1 <->>5; 'eo'le 'a 0ore attention to the tar#et 'erson infor0ation 4consistenc an% %istinctiveness infor0ation5 than to infor0ation relatin# to the other 'eo'le in the conte2t 4consensus infor0ation; (in%schil% E (ells1 <--G5/ Perha's 0ore i0'ortantl 1 althou#h 'eo'le follo. these rules an% %e%uce causalit lo#icall in so0e circu0stances1 these a''ear to onl be circu0stances .here all the infor0ation is lai% out for 'artici'ants to clearl see an% .hen 'artici'ants have the time to .or" out a li"el cause in the co0'le2 .a %escribe% above/ Ho.ever1 .hen so0e infor0ation is 0issin# 4e/#/ there is no %istinctive6 ness infor0ation available51 'eo'le can still 0a"e attributions/ This i0'lies that there are alternative .a s in .hich 'eo'le can 0a"e these sorts of 7u%#0ents/

Su00ar
So far in this cha'ter .e have seen ho. 'eo'le can act li"e nave scientists/ (e li"e a stable an% 're%ictable .orl%1 an% e2'lainin# other 'eo'le3s behavior as bein# %o.n to internal, dispositional causes or external, situational causes is one .a of achievin# this/ The correspondent inference model 'ro'oses that 'eo'le tr to infer a %is'ositional cause for behavior because such attributions are 0ost valuable for 0a"in# 're%ictions/ Three t 'es of infor0ation are relevant here? .hether the behavior in +uestion is socially desirable1 chosen or non-chosen1 an% has a unique effect/ Ho.ever1 this 0o%el is li0ite% in focusin# onl on %is'ositional attributions/ The co6variation 0o%el is 0ore fle2ible1 able to account for both internal an% e2ternal attributions/ Accor%in# to Felle 3s co-variation model1 'eo'le co0bine consensus1 consistency an% distinctiveness infor0ation to arrive at an internal or e2ternal attribution/

(ocial desirabilit" )hoice )orrespondent inference theor" *on-common effects )onsensus

'he covariatio n model

)onsensus

)onsensus

:i#ure 2/, !e0or !a'

@D Essential Social Ps cholo#

Attributional $iases
Felle 3s 0o%el is an idealized account of ho. 'eo'le 0a"e causalit 7u%#0ents/ Peo'le can1 but often %o not1 loo" for an% co0bine the three t 'es of infor0ation outline% above/ Can an of us sa .e routinel 'erfor0 the sorts of co0'le21 attention6%e0an%in# calcu6 lations that are re+uire% b the co6variation 0o%el* Rather than bein# such lo#ical an% rational creatures1 it feels 0ore li"e .e often 0a"e assess0ents about other 'eo'le b thin#s li"e 8#ut feelin#9 an% 8intuition9/ Certainl 1 .e %on3t al.a s s'en% 0uch ti0e or effort arrivin# at 0an of the i0'ressions .e for0 about 'eo'le .e 0eet on a %ail basis/ The i%ea that .e ta"e shortcuts in social 7u%#0ent1 rather than al.a s #oin# throu#h co0'le2 'rocesses li"e that outline% above1 be#an to #ain .ei#ht .hen attribution researchers starte% to observe a nu0ber of s ste0atic 8errors9 'eo'le .ere 0a"in# .hen as"e% to 0a"e assess0ents of causalit in 's cholo# e2'eri0ents/ These errors or biases .ere not ran%o01 but a''eare% to be 0a%e .ith such re#ularit as to su##est the e2istence of alternative 's cholo#ical strate#ies bein# en#a#e%/ In the ne2t section .e3ll %ocu0ent so0e of these biases/ This .ill lea% us to an i0'ortant shift in theori&in# that arose fro0 %ealin# .ith the shortco0in#s of the nave scientist account/ Attributional biases %escribe the ten%enc in 'articular conte2ts to 0a"e one t 'e of attribution C internal or e2ternal C over another/ The attributions 0a%e in this .a are not necessaril .ron#1 but the are 0a%e in a 0uch +uic"er an% less careful .a than the elab6 orate 'rocesses %etaile% b the 0o%els %iscusse% in the 'revious section/ (e .ill here consi%er three of the 0ost %ocu0ente% biases? the fundamental attribution error, the actor- observer bias; an% self-serving attributions/

The :un%a0ental Attribution Error

All other thin#s bein# e+ual1 'eo'le have a #eneral ten%enc to 0a"e internal rather than e2ternal attributions1 even .hen there are clear 'otential situational causes 4Ross1 <-GG5/ The error is illustrate% in a stu% b Hones an% Harris 4<-DG5/ Partici'ants .ere instructe% to rea% essa s that ha% been .ritten b fello. stu%ents an% that .ere either 'ro6 or a#ainst :i%el Castro3s rule in Cuba/ Partici'ants .ere tol% that the .riters ha% either chosen the essa to'ic the0selves1 or ha% been tol% .hich one 4'ro6 or antiCCastro5 to .rite b the e2'eri0enter/ Partici'ants .ere subse+uentl as"e% to #uess .hat attitu%e the 'erson .ho ha% .ritten the essa ha% to.ar%s Castro/ In the choice con%ition 'artic6 i'ants reasonabl assu0e% the .riter ha% .ritten an essa that reflecte% their o.n o'in6 ions/ Ho.ever1 'artici'ants also thou#ht the essa reflecte% the .riter3s true o'inion in the no6choice con%ition/ In other .or%s1 even thou#h there .as a clear conte2tual cause for the behavior observe% 4the e2'eri0enter3s instruction to .rite one essa or another51 .hich shoul% lo#icall re%uce the 'robabilit that the essa reflecte% the .riter3s o.n attitu%e1 'artici'ants still 0a%e an internal attribution/ The 'ai% no attention to the 'os6 sible %iscountin# infor0ation an% assu0e% the essa reflecte% the .riter3s o'inion 4see :i#ure 2/@5/

Social Co#nition
+, -, ., !, , /, 0, Pro-)astro Essay Written )hoice *o )hoice #nti-)astro

@G

P r o C a s

:i#ure 2/@

The fun%a0ental attribution error/ )ata fro0 Hones an% Harris 4<-DG5

The reason .h the fun%a0ental attribution error occurs a''ears to be perceptual salience/ The 'erson bein# observe% is the 0ost 'erce'tuall salient as'ect of the situation 4i/e/ 0ovin#1 tal"in#1 etc/5 an% so an internal 4'erson5 attribution beco0es 0uch 0ore accessible 4Ta lor E :is"e1 <-G=5/ (hat is i0'ortant to note here is that so0ethin# 0uch si0'ler 4i/e/ .hat a''ears to ca'ture attention the 0ost5 %eter0ines the social 7u%#0ent1 not a co0'le2 nave scientist6li"e thou#ht 'rocess/ The i%ea that 'eo'le use si0'le rules of thu0b such as 'erce'tual salience to arrive at social 7u%#0ents is reinforce% b the observation of another attribution bias1 the actor6observer bias/

The Actor6Observer $ias

Let3s #o bac" to our irritable sho' assistant/ In this scenario1 in line .ith the fun%a0ental attribution error1 .e .oul% be li"el to conclu%e a %is'ositional attribution1 an% %eci%e that the sho' assistant .as si0'l not a nice 'erson/ $ut i0a#ine a ti0e before .hen ou have been ru%e to so0eone/ On this basis %o ou consi%er ourself a ru%e an% un'leasant 'erson* Probabl not/ Bou 'robabl consi%er ourself to be a nice 'erson .ho .as ru%e because of a s'ecific 4e2ternal5 C an% 7ustifiable C reason1 for e2a0'le stress fro0 .or" 'ressures/ This ten%enc to attribute other 'eo'le3s behavior to internal causes an% our o.n behaviors to external causes is calle% the actor6observer effect 4Hones E Nisbett1 <-G25/

@>

Essential Social Ps cholo# Stor0s 4<-G,5 carrie% out an e2'eri0ent that neatl illustrate% this bias/ In an a''arent 8conversation tas"9 t.o 'artici'ants .ere allocate% to observer roles an% t.o as actors .ho .oul% si0'l have a five60inute conversation .ith each other/ In a subse+uent 'hase 'artici'ants .ere re+uire% to attribute causalit 4that is1 7u%#e .hether the o'inions e2'resse% reflecte% the s'ea"ers3 stable 'ersonalit or so0e other conte2tual %eter0inant5/ Stor0s foun% that observers e0'hasi&e% dispositional factors .hen e2'lainin# the actors3 behaviors1 .hile actors e0'hasi&e% situational factors .hen e2'lainin# their own behavior/ The e2'lanation for this is a#ain perceptual salience/ The actors3 attention .as %irecte% a.a fro0 the0selves; the .ere loo"in# at the situation/ Corres'on%in#l 1 this 0a%e a situation attribution 0ore salient or accessible to the0/ Observers3 attention .as focuse% on the actor1 0a"in# an e2'lanation focuse% on the actor C an internal1 %is'ositional attri6 bution C 0ore salient or accessible/ :urther su''ort for the i%ea that it .as si0'l 'erce'6 tual salience that .as %rivin# these effects co0es fro0 the observation that the actor6observer bias .as reverse% .hen the actors .ere sho.n vi%eota'es of their opposite perspective before 0a"in# attributions/ (hen the actors sa. their o.n faces %urin# the tas"1 their attention shifte% to be focuse% on the0selves an% not the situation1 .hich le% to the0 0a"in# an internal attribution/

Self6Servin# Attributions
As .ell as co#nitive6'erce'tual 'rocesses 'rovi%in# an inferential shortcut in attribution 7u%#0ents1 0otivations can also bias attributions/ I0a#ine ou %o .ell in our social 's 6 cholo# e2a0/ Are ou li"el to attribute our success to luc"1 a flu"e1 or are ou li"el to feel +uite 'rou%1 an% attribute our success to the effort ou 'ut in* Accor%in# to the self6 servin# attribution bias it3s the latter/ Olson an% Ross 4<->>5 ar#ue that .e are 0ore li"el to 0a"e internal attributions for our successes 4e/#/1 8I30 intelli#ent95 an% e2ternal attri6 butions for failures 4e/#/ 8it .as a 'articularl har% e2a095 because 0a"in# attributions in this .a 'rotects an% 0aintains our self-esteem/ Internall attributin# success an% e2ter6 nall attributin# failure both boosts our feelin#s of self6.orth an% 'rotects us fro0 feelin# ba% .hen .e %on3t %o .ell/ This t 'e of bias can also .or" at a #rou' level; .e ten% to attribute our #rou'3s successes to internal factors an% other #rou'3s successes to e2ternal factors 4He.stone1 <--A5/ Such #rou'6servin# attributions hel' to bolster the 'ositive vie. .e hol% of the #rou's .e belon# to 4relative to other #rou's51 an% therefore hel' us to feel #oo% b association/ In Cha'ter D .e3ll see ho. such o.n6#rou' bias can contribute to 're7u%ice an% %iscri0ination bet.een #rou's/

Su00ar
Peo'le have a basic %esire to 0a"e sense of the .orl%1 to un%erstan% it an% to be able to 're%ict .hat .ill ha''en/ In or%er to satisf this %esire 'eo'le 0a"e attributions the tr to .or" out cause an% effect1 the o'erate li"e nave scientists/ Peo'le can be rationale an% lo#ical in 0a"in# social inferences/ The can loo" for infor0ation relatin# to con- sensus, consistency an% distinctiveness1 the can co0bine these sources of infor0ation

Social Co#nition

@-

#''1234'2O* '5$O16

#''1234'2O*#7 32#($(

(elf-serving attributions

SOCIAL COGNITION

'he fundamental attribution

:i#ure 2/=

!e0or !a'

in co0'le2 .a s1 an% the can arrive at an internal or external attribution/ Ho.ever1 'eo'le %o not al.a s en#a#e in such a co0'le21 effortful1 an% ti0e6consu0in# 'rocess .hen 0a"in# social 7u%#0ents1 as the observation of biases in attribution sho.s us/ The fundamental attribution error sho.s ho. .e are t 'icall incline% to.ar%s 0a"in# an internal1 %is'ositional attribution1 at least .ith res'ect to others3 behaviors/ :or our o.n behavior1 ho.ever1 .e ten% to 0a"e external1 situation attributions 4the actor-observer bias5/ The e2'lanation for these biases is that 'eo'le so0eti0es ten% to rel on si0'ler cues for 0a"in# attributions1 li"e perceptual salience/ This is 0uch si0'ler than those co0'le2 'rocesses outline% b correspondent inference theory or the co-variation model/ The observation of %ocu0ente% attributional bias is critical to ho. 's cholo#ists3 un%er6 stan%in# of social inference built u'on the earl .or" on attribution theor / It beca0e clear that 'eo'le are not always nave scientists1 but that so0eti0es the 7ust %o not .ant 4or cannot5 en#a#e in the lon#1 ti0e6consu0in# co0'le2 'rocesses that .ere s'ecifie% b earl attribution 0o%els/ It a''eare% that a ne. 'ers'ective .as nee%e% to un%erstan% the social co#nition of the social 'erceiver1 an% it is this 'ers'ective that is the focus of the ne2t section/

The Co#nitive !iser

:ar fro0 bein# nave scientists1 rationall an% lo#icall %evotin# our ti0e an% co#nitive effort to anal sin# our social .orl%s1 :is"e an% Ta lor 4<--<5 ar#ue% that .e are +uite the o''osite1 that in fact .e are cognitive misers/ As co#nitive 0isers .e are reluctant to e2'en% co#nitive resources an% .e loo" for an o''ortunit to avoi% en#a#in# in the sort of effortful thou#ht that the attribution 0o%els of Hones an% )avis 4<-D=5 an% Felle 4<-DG5 'ro'ose%/ Accor%in# to :is"e an% Ta lor our 0ental 'rocessin# resources are hi#hl value%1 so .e en#a#e in nu0erous .a s to save ti0e an% effort .hen tr in# to un%erstan% the social .orl%/ In this ne2t section .e .ill %iscuss so0e of the .a s in .hich

=A Essential Social Ps cholo# .e %o this an% illustrate ho. 'eo'le can be re0ar"abl a%e't at 0a"in# reasonabl accurate inferences .ithout havin# to en#a#e in a #reat %eal of co#nitive 'rocessin#/

Heuristics
Peo'le save ti0e an% effort in 0a"in# 7u%#0ents b usin# heuristics 4Tvers" E Fahne0an1 <-G@5/ Heuristics are ti0esavin# 0ental shortcuts that re%uce co0'le2 7u%#0ents to si0'le rules of thu0b/ The are +uic" an% eas 1 but can result in biase% infor0ation 'rocessin# 4A7&en1 <--D51 .hich is one of the .a s of i%entif in# that the have been use% instea% of 0ore ti0e6consu0in#1 but 0ore accurate1 strate#ies/ $elo. .e outline t.o of the 0ost co06 0onl use% t 'es of heuristics? representativeness an% availability/

The Re'resentativeness Heuristic

The representativeness heuristic is the ten%enc to allocate a set of attributes to so0eone if the 0atch the 'rotot 'e of a #iven cate#or 4Fahne0an E Tvers" 1 <-G,5/ It is a +uic"6 an%6eas .a of 'uttin# 'eo'le in to cate#ories/ :or instance1 if ou arrive at a hos'ital in nee% of hel'1 ou3ll loo" for the 'erson .earin# a .hite coat an% stethosco'e1 because these s'ecific attributes in%icate that the 'erson is 4re'resentative of5 a %octor/ Si0ilarl 1 .hen ou enter our lecture class ou 0i#ht ver +uic"l i%entif our 'rofessor as bein# the one .ith the %ubious fashion sense an% sli#htl un"e0't loo"in# hair/ Later on .e .ill tal" at #reater len#th about the use of re'resentativeness infor0ation in the conte2t of social categorization1 but for no. it is i0'ortant to note one i0'ortant %ra.bac" of usin# this 0ental shortcut/ (hile assessin# re'resentativeness to a cate#or 'rotot 'e 0a often be a #oo% .a of 0a"in# inferences about so0eone1 li"e an heuristic it is 'rone to error/ In 'ar6 ticular1 there is the base rate fallacy1 .hich is the ten%enc to i#nore statistical infor0ation 4base rates5 in favor of re'resentativeness infor0ation/ :or e2a0'le1 even if ou tol% so0e6 one that #en%er is uncorrelate% .ith 0ana#erial an% a%0inistrative roles in so0e cor'ora6 tion 4i/e/ that there are an e+ual nu0ber of 0en an% .o0en at %ifferent levels of 'o.er51 the .oul% 'robabl still be 0ore li"el to attribute 0ore of the 0ana#erial 4hi#h 'o.er5 roles to 0en than .o0en1 because such roles are 0ore re'resentative of 0en than .o0en/

The Availabilit Heuristic

The availability heuristic is the ten%enc to 7u%#e the fre+uenc or 'robabilit of an event in ter0s of ho. eas it is to thin" of e2a0'les of that event 4Tvers" E Fahne0an1 <-G,5/ It is relate% to the conce't of accessibility1 .hich is the e2tent to .hich a conce't is rea%il brou#ht to 0in% 4see Cha'ter , on attitu%es5/ The %ifference is that availabilit can refer to one3s sub7ective e2'erience of accessibilit C the a.areness that so0ethin# is accessible C .hereas accessibilit is t 'icall re#ar%e% as an ob7ective 0easure of ho. +uic"l so0e6 thin# can be brou#ht to 0in%1 .ithout e2'licit a.areness bein# a necessar co0'onent/ The availabilit heuristic can be illustrate% .ith varie% e2a0'les fro0 ever %a life/ :or instance1 ou 0i#ht feel 0ore tre'i%ation about ta"in# a fli#ht if ou have 7ust hear% about

Social Co#nition
+

=<

R a t i n g o f

Number of Examlpes Recalled #ssertive 4nassertive

0/

:i#ure 2/D

Evi%ence for the availabilit heuristic/ )ata fro0 Sch.art& et al/ 4<--<5

a horrific 'lane crash/ In this e2a0'le1 our assess0ent of ho. li"el it is that the 'lane 7ourne .ill be a safe one .ill be influence% b the availabilit of infor0ation to the contrar / A neat e2'eri0ent illustrates this heuristic/ Sch.ar& an% collea#ues 4<--<5 as"e% 'artici'ants to recall <2 or si2 e2a0'les of .hen the ha% been either assertive or unassertive/ After havin# co0'lete% this tas" 'artici'ants .ere then as"e% to rate their o.n assertiveness/ Counter to .hat one 0i#ht lo#icall e2'ect1 'artici'ants .ho recalle% si2 e2a0'les of their o.n assertive behavior subse+uentl rate% the0selves as more assertive than 'eo'le .ho ha% recalle% <2 e2a0'les of their o.n assertive behavior/ The sa0e effect occurre% for 'eo'le .ho recalle% e2a0'les of unassertive behavior? those .ho recalle% si2 e2a0'les of unassertive behavior rate% the0selves less assertive 40ore unassertive5 than those .ho recalle% <2 e2a0'les of unassertive behavior1 see :i#ure 2/D/ These fin%in#s are reall +uite %ifferent fro0 .hat one 0i#ht e2'ect/ Surel so0eone .ho can recall 0ore e2a0'les of assertive behavior shoul% re#ar% the0selves as more assertive than so0eone .ho can onl recall a fe. e2a0'les/ Si0ilarl 1 so0eone .ho can recall 0ore e2a0'les of .hen the have been unassertive shoul% lo#icall then rate the06 selves as more unassertive/ In contrast1 the 0ore e2a0'les of assertive or unassertive behavior 'eo'le .ere as"e% to #enerate1 the less assertive or unassertive res'ectivel the 'erceive% the0selves to be/ The e2'lanation for this effect lies .ith the availabilit heuristic/ The "e is in thin"in# about ho. eas or %ifficult the tas" 0i#ht be to 'eo'le/ On avera#e 'eo'le %on3t nor0all

=2 Essential Social Ps cholo# s'en% 0uch ti0e listin# the nu0ber of ti0es the are assertive or unassertive in their lives/ As such1 bein# as"e% to list assertive or unassertive behaviors 0i#ht be so0ethin# the are not use% to an%1 one i0a#ines1 is a tas" that #ets 0ore %ifficult after the first t.o or three e2a0'les that co0e to 0in%/ (e can assu0e that bein# as"e% to recall <2 e2a0'les of assertive or unassertive behavior .oul% be 0ore difficult that bein# as"e% to recall si2 e2a0'les of assertive or unassertive behavior/ (hile %oin# this tas"1 it is therefore rea6 sonable that 'eo'le reco#ni&e% that the .ere fin%in# it %ifficult to co0e u' .ith e2a06 'les of assertive or unassertive behavior after the first fe. that ca0e to 0in%1 an% that this reali&ation shoul% be 0uch #reater .hen 'artici'ants ha% to labor on an% co0e u' .ith <2 e2a0'les/ As the trie% to thin" of <2 e2a0'les of behavior1 'artici'ants .ill have even6 tuall beco0e a.are that such e2a0'les .ere not co0in# easil to 0in%/ In other .or%s1 there .ere no 0ore e2a0'les available to the0/ The therefore conclu%e% that the 0ust not be 'articularl assertive or unassertive 4%e'en%in# on .hat t 'e of behavior the ha% been instructe% to #enerate5/ In su01 it see0s that 'eo'le atten% to the difficulty of retriev6 in# instances of certain behaviors an% not 7ust the content/

The :alse Consensus Effect

The availabilit heuristic is an i0'ortant e2'lanator 0echanis0 that .e .ill see a#ain several ti0es in the course of this boo"/ It is also res'onsible for a hi#hl robust bias calle% the false consensus effect 4Gross E !iller1 <--G5/ This is the ten%enc to e2a##erate ho. co00on one3s o.n o'inions are in the #eneral 'o'ulation/ Ross1 Greene1 an% House 4<-GG5 illustrate% this effect b as"in# 'artici'ants .hether the .oul% .al" aroun% ca0'us for ,A 0inutes .earin# a san%.ich boar% a%vertisin# a cafeteria/ (hether the a#ree% or not1 the e2'eri0enter then as"e% the0 ho. 0an other stu%ents as"e% .oul% 0a"e the sa0e choice as the %i%/ Ross et al/ foun% that .hatever choice the 'artici'ant 0a%e1 the esti0ate% that the ma ority of other 'eo'le .oul% a#ree .ith the0 an% 0a"e the sa0e choice/ Clearl 1 this consensus esti0ate is not ob7ectivel 'ossible/ If1 for e2a0'le1 GA 'er cent of 'eo'le su''ort one 'olitical 'art 1 then ,A 'er cent 0ust not C ou cannot have =A 'er cent of 'eo'le not su''ortin# this 'art / There 0ust therefore be a false consensus, .hereb 'eo'le believe that ever bo% usuall a#rees .ith the0/ The availability heuristic 'rovi%es the e2'lanation for the false consensus effect/ Our o.n self6beliefs are easil recalle% fro0 0e0or 1 0a"in# the0 0ost available .hen .e are as"e% to 7u%#e .hether others a#ree .ith us/ This 0a"es it li"el that our 7u%#0ents of others3 attitu%es an% o'inions .ill1 at least to so0e e2tent1 be influence% b our o.n/

The Anchorin# Heuristic

It is often the case that a %istinction is 0a%e bet.een the availabilit heuristic an% another calle% the anchoring heuristic Anchorin# is the ten%enc to be biase% to.ar%s the start6 in# value 4or anchor5 in 0a"in# +uantitative 7u%#0ents 4( er1 <-GD5/ There have been a nu0ber of illustrations of this effect/ Plous 4<->-5 carrie% out a surve %urin# the Col% (ar in .hich he as"e% the sa0e +uestion in t.o sli#htl %ifferent .a s/ :or half of the

Social Co#nition

=,

'artici'ants he as"e% .hether the thou#ht there .as a #reater than < 'er cent chance of a nuclear .ar occurrin# soon1 an% for the other half he as"e% .hether the thou#ht there .as a less than a -A 'er cent chance of a nuclear .ar occurrin# soon/ $oth +uestions as"e% for a +uantitative esti0ate of 'robabilit 1 so one i0a#ines ho. the +uestion as"e% shoul% not have an i0'act on the 7u%#0ents 0a%e/ In fact1 there is +uite a consi%erable effect of the anchor 'rovi%e% in the +uestion/ Partici'ants .ho receive% the < 'er cent +uestion anchor esti0ate% a <A 'er cent chance of a nuclear .ar occurrin#1 .hile those .ho receive% the -A 'er cent anchor esti0ate% a 2= 'er cent chance of a nuclear .ar occurrin#/ A si0ilar effect .as observe% b Greenber# et al/ 4<->D51 .ho foun% in a 0oc" 7ur stu% that 'artici'ants as"e% to consi%er first a harsh ver%ict .ere subse+uentl harsher in their final %ecision than 'artici'ants as"e% first to consi%er a lenient ver%ict/ In su01 it a''ears that our 7u%#0ents on a ran#e of issues are si#nificantl influence% b the 'oint at .hich .e start our %eliberations/ (hile the anchorin# heuristic has often been consi%ere% to be %istinct fro0 the availabilit heuristic1 in essence it co0es %o.n to the sa0e 's cholo#ical 0echanis0/ The startin# 'oint or anchor e2erts an i0'act on 7u%#6 0ent because it is the 0ost available source of infor0ation relevant to the issue at han%/ Either .a 1 this bias has so0e clearl i0'ortant i0'lications for a ran#e of social conte2ts fro0 the .a in .hich la. ers structure +uestions in the courtroo0 4to elicit 'articular ans.ers51 to the .a that o'inion 'ollsters #au#e attitu%es/

The !otivate% Tactician

In this section .e have seen ho. heuristics are so0eti0es use% in social 7u%#0ent over an% above 0ore rational1 lo#ical1 but ti0e6consu0in# .a s of thin"in#/ In other .or%s1 'eo'le can so0eti0e be cognitive misers rather than nave scientists1 'referrin# ease an% s'ee% over accurac / As .e note% above in our %iscussion of attribution theor 1 'artici'ants can an% %o use the co0'le2 s ste0s outline% b 0o%els 'ro'ose% b Hones an% )avis 4<-D=5 an% Felle 4<-DG51 but this onl a''ears to be the case un%er certain con%itions/ Other ti0es 'eo'le see0 to revert to 0a"in# +uic" an% eas 7u%#0ents usin# 0ental shortcuts li"e availabilit or re'resentativeness1 or rel in# on si0'le cues li"e 'erce'tual salience 4.hich can also be consi%ere% a t 'e of availabilit 5/ These heuristic shortcuts are 0uch less accurate than usin# 0ore rational1 lo#ical 0o%es of thou#ht1 but the %o a''ro2i0ate a res'onse that is often .ithin acce'table 'ara0eters/ So .hat %eter0ines .hether 'eo'le .ill a%o't one of these strate#ies over the other* (hen are 'eo'le nave scientists an% .hen are the co#ni6 tive 0isers* Accor%in# to Fru#lans"i 4<--D5 'eo'le are flexible social thin"ers .ho choose bet.een 0ulti'le co#nitive strate#ies 4i/e/ s'ee%Kease vs/ accurac Klo#ic5 base% on their current goals, motives, an% needs! Fru#lans"i ar#ue% that 'eo'le are neither e2clusivel co#nitive 0isers nor nave scientists1 but in fact motivated tacticians/ Put another .a 1 'eo'le are strate#ic in their allocation of co#nitive resources an% as such can %eci%e to be a co#nitive 0iser or a nave scientist %e'en%in# on a nu0ber of factors/ !acrae1 He.stone1 an% Griffiths 4<--,5

=@

Essential Social Ps cholo#

Perceiver must make a social inference

("stematic processing

5euristic processing

0. 'ime /. )ognitive load . 2mportance !. 2nformation Perceiver acts like a nave scientist: rational and logical anal"sis of available information. 5295$1 #))41#)6

Perceiver acts like a cognitive miser: 8uick and eas" anal"sis.

7O:$1 #))41#)6

:i#ure 2/G The 0otivate%6tactician? con%itions of heuristic versus s ste0atic 'rocessin# outline a nu0ber of factors that %eter0ine .hether 'eo'le .ill a%o't lo#ical1 rationale1 an% ti0e6consu0in# 'rocessin# strate#ies in social inference1 or .hether the .ill #o for a +uic" an% eas 1 but +uite 'ossibl a%e+uate1 solution 4see :i#ure 2/G5/ :irst1 'eo'le .ill be 0ore li"el to be a co#nitive 0iser .hen the are short of time1 than .hen the have 'lent of it/ This 0a"es sense/ Heuristics are +uic" an% eas 1 the save ti0e1 therefore1 .hen .e have to 0a"e a +uic" %ecision/ So althou#h it is less accu6 rate1 heuristics 0a be the best o'tion o'en to use in or%er to 0a"e a 7u%#0ent that at least a''ro2i0ates an a%e+uate res'onse/ Secon% is cognitive load/ Heuristics %o not re+uire 0uch thou#ht C the can be 0a%e off the cuff1 si0'l 0a%e fro0 a 8#ut instinct9 or intu6 ition 4or1 .hat .e .oul% now call1 availabilit 5/ In contrast1 the nave scientist a''roach re+uires a lot of thou#ht1 anal sis1 an% conte0'lation/ If .e are bus .ith lots on our 0in%1 .e3re unli"el to %evote 0uch ti0e to social 'erce'tion1 an% are 0uch 0ore li"el to use

Social Co#nition == heuristics because1 a#ain1 the a''ro2i0ate a ri#ht ans.er .ithout havin# to #ive the issue at han% 0uch thou#ht/ Thir% is importance/ Heuristics are useful for 'rovi%in# esti0ates1 but the cannot 0atch 0ore lo#ical1 rational1 an% %etaile% anal ses/ If a %ecision .e have to 0a"e is i0'ortant to us 4e/#/ .hether to #o for that ne. 7ob5 then .e are 0uch less li"el to use a heuristic an% 0uch 0ore li"el to be a nave scientist/ :ourth1 an% final1 is information level/ As .e note% in our %iscussion of attribution theor 1 'eo'le can an% %o 0a"e use of co0'le2 attribution rules in for0in# i0'ressions1 co0binin# consensus1 con6 sistenc 1 an% %istinctiveness infor0ation in elaborate .a s1 but only .hen the have all the necessar 'ieces of infor0ation/ If .e %on3t have all the facts then so0eti0es it is si0'l i0'ossible for us to be nave scientists; .e 0a si0'l not have enou#h infor0ation to be able to rationall an% lo#icall 0a"e a %etaile% anal sis of the issue at han%/ In such situ6 ations the onl recourse is to use a heuristic shortcut to a''ro2i0ate the correct res'onse/

Su00ar
(hat %o .e "no. so far about social co#nition* (e have seen ho. 'eo'le can be nave scientists an% en#a#e in co0'le2 attribution calculations base% on co0binin# infor0ation relatin# to consensus1 consistency an% distinctiveness/ $ut .e have also seen ho. in 0an cases 'eo'le %o not use these co0'le2 rules1 an% %o not #o throu#h an elaborate 'rocess .hen for0in# an i0'ression of others/ Instea% a nu0ber of attribution 8errors9 are a''arent1 such as the fundamental attribution error, the actor-observer bias1 an% self- serving attributions1 all of .hich in%icate a reliance on 0ore basic infor0ation1 for e2a0'le e2ternal cues li"e perceptual salience1 an% internal 0otivations li"e self-esteem 0aintenance/ This reliance on si0'le cues to 0a"e +uic" an% eas 7u%#0ents is in%icative of a %ifferent a''roach to social inference1 the cognitive miser 'erce'tion/ Co#nitive 0isers use a nu0ber of heuristics to short6cut lon# an% elaborate 0ental 'rocesses/ These inclu%e the representativeness an% availability heuristics1 .hich can lea% to biases li"e the false consensus effect an% the anchoring of +uantitative 7u%#0ents/ There are a nu0ber of factors that %eter0ine .hether .e use these heuristic or s ste0atic strate#ies of social inference1 .hether .e act li"e nave scientists or co#nitive 0isers/ In fact .e are 0ore li"e motivated tacticians1 choosin# bet.een ease an% speed an% accuracy1 %e'en%6 in# u'on thin#s li"e time, cognitive load, importance an% the a0ount of information available/ :ro0 .hat .e have %iscusse% so far it is clear that .e use heuristics routinel an% con6 sistentl / Hust thin" for a 0o0ent/ In our %ail life ho. often %o ou have 'lent of time1 have nothing else to thin" about1 re#ar% ever issue as important an% self6relevant1 an% have all the information nee%e% to 0a"e a %etaile% anal sis* Not that often/ Heuristic thou#ht is use% a #reat %eal in social 'erce'tion/ In this secon% half of the cha'ter .e 0ove on to consi%er a uni+ue heuristic that has receive% consi%erable attention fro0 social 's 6 cholo#ists because it is 'articularl i0'ortant for un%erstan%in# ho. 'eo'le thin"1 feel1 an% behave/ It is a heuristic that %efines attitu%es an% social behavior1 an% a heuristic that .e .ill see ti0e an% a#ain throu#hout this boo"? social categorization/

=D

Essential Social Ps cholo#

5$412('2)(

SOCIAL COGNITION

1epresentativeness

#vailabilit"

'he false consensus effect #nchoring

("stematic versus heuristic processing 0. 'ime /. )ognitive over load . 2mportance !. 2nformation

'he na;ve scientist

'he cognitive miser

:i#ure 2/>

!e0or !a'

SOCIAL CATEGORILATION
$asic Princi'les
$efore consi%erin# so0e of the characteristics of social categori!ation as a heuristic1 let us first %efine e2actl .hat cate#ori&ation is/ Cate#ori&ation is 8the 'rocess of un%er6 stan%in# .hat so0ethin# is b "no.in# .hat other thin#s it is e+uivalent to1 an% .hat other thin#s it is %ifferent fro09 4!cGart 1 <---? <5/ This %efinition ca'tures the "e +ualities of cate#ori&ation that .ill be i0'ortant in this cha'ter an% others in the boo"/ Cate#ori&ation is a .a of classif in# so0e collection of ob7ects1 events1 o'inions1 attitu%es1 conce'ts or 'eo'le/ It is a .a of labellin# so0e #rou' of thin#s as bein# all relate% to each other in so0e .a 1 all lin"e% an% interconnecte% to a #reater or lesser e2tent 4e/#/ 8%o#s91 8furniture91 8.eather91 8.o0en91 8(orl% (ar 291 8ve#etables91 80anchester unite%951 an% a .a of co0'arin# one thin# to another 4e/#/ 8$ritish9 versus 8:rench91 8%o#s versus cats91 8roc"9 versus 8'o'95/ The .a that researchers have conce'tuali&e% cate#ori&ation has evolve% over ti0e/ The vie. use% to be that there .as a 'recise %efinition of cate#or boun%aries 4S0ith E !e%in1 <-><5/ $runer1 Goo%no.1 an% Austin 4<-=D51 for instance1 'ostulate% that cate#or

Social Co#nition =G 0e0bershi' .as %eter0ine% via %efine% features 4i/e/ an ani0al .ith three bo% %ivisions1 si2 le#s1 an e2ternal s"eleton1 an% a ra'i% re'ro%uctive s ste0 is therefore an insect5/ If 7ust one of these attributes .as 0issin# the ani0al .as +uite si0'l so0ethin# else/ It soon beca0e clear1 ho.ever1 that a ri#i% s ste0 of all6or6nothin# cate#ori&ation %oes not ca'ture the fle2ibilit an% flui%it of hu0an 'erce'tion/ !an cate#ories have uncer6 tain or "fu!!y# boundaries 4Rosch1 <-G>5 an% %o not fit in .ith a strict classification s s6 te0 4e/#/ a %o# is 0ore 8'et6li"e9 than an i#uana1 %es'ite havin# the sa0e 8'et9 attributes5/ A 0ore fle2ible vie. of cate#ori&ation ar#ues that it is not %efine% attributes that %eter6 0ine cate#or 0e0bershi'1 but 0e0bers can be 0ore or less typical of a cate#or 4Labov1 <-G,5/ I0'ortantl 1 t 'icalit is variable; #rou' 0e0bers can be hi#hl t 'ical or hi#hl at 'ical of a cate#or / (hat %efines t 'icalit is the 'rotot 'e of the cate#or / $rototypes are the 0ost re'resentative 0e0bers of a cate#or 4$arsalou1 <--<5; cate#ori&ation of less t 'ical 0e0bers 0a be slo.er or 'rone to error because the are less available! In other .or%s1 .e can conce'tuali&e the e2tent to .hich a cate#or 0e0ber is 'rotot 'ical of that cate#or to the e2tent that it is eas to brin# to 0in%/ Thin" for a 0o0ent about an ite0 of fruit/ (e bet ou thou#ht of an a''le or an oran#e 4for -- 'er cent of ou at least5/ (e3re 'rett certain ou %i% not thin" of a "i.i fruit1 an% al0ost certainl not a to0ato/ A''les an% oran#es are hi#hl 'rotot 'ical of the cate#or 8fruit91 an% are eas to brin# to 0in%/ In contrast1 "i.i fruit an% to0atoes1 .hile still 0e0bers of the fruit cate#or 1 are +uite at 'ical1 an% so are brou#ht to 0in% far less easil / The hi#h 'robabilit of 'eo'le brin#6 in# 'rotot 'ical #rou' 0e0bers to 0in% .hen cate#ori&in# others can lea% to errors/ The 'rotot 'e of the cate#or 8en#ineers91 for instance1 is a 0ale1 .hich 0a lea% to errors in cate#ori&ation .hen encounterin# a fe0ale en#ineer/

Cate#or content
So cate#ories are %efine% b 'rotot 'es/ (hen .e are %ealin# .ith social cate#ories1 .e can refer to 'rotot 'es as stereotypes/ $ut ho. %o 'rotot 'es an% stereot 'es for0 in the first 'lace* (h %o .e co0e to 'erceive so0e characteristics as t 'ical of certain cate6 #ories an% so0e not* Social learnin# an% e2'osure clearl 'la a role 4.e %iscuss these in 0ore %etail belo.5/ $ut there is another .a in .hich s'ecificall negative stereot 'es can co0e to be associate% .ith minority #rou's/ This is so0ethin# calle% the illusory corre- lation/ Illusor correlation %escribes the belief that t.o variables are associate% .ith one another .hen in fact there is little or no actual association 4Ha0ilton E Giffor%1 <-GD5/ In their classic e2'eri0ent1 Ha0ilton an% Giffor% as"e% 'artici'ants to rea% infor0ation about 'eo'le fro0 t.o 0a%e6u' #rou's1 #rou' A an% #rou' $/ T.ice as 0uch infor0ation .as 'rovi%e% about Grou' A 4the 0a7orit 5 than Grou' $ 4the 0inorit 5/ In a%%ition1 t.ice as 0uch of the infor0ation 'rovi%e% for both #rou's involve% %esirable behaviors rather than un%esirable behaviors/ )es'ite there bein# no actual correlation bet.een #rou' 0e0bershi' an% the 'ro'ortion of 'ositive or ne#ative infor0ation 'rovi%e%1 in a subse+uent 'hase .here 'artici'ants .ere as"e% to attribute the behaviors the ha% seen to the t.o #rou's1 0ore of the un%esirable ne#ative behaviors .ere attribute% to Grou' $1 the 0inorit #rou'1 than Grou' A1 the 0a7orit

=>

Essential Social Ps cholo# #rou'/ Partici'ants therefore 'erceive% an illusor correlation C the believe% that ne#ative behaviors .ere 0ore characteristic of the s0aller #rou' than the bi##er #rou'/ Ha0ilton an% Giffor% e2'laine% this effect .ith reference to the notion of shared distinctiveness/ Half as 0an total behaviors .ere use% to %escribe the 0inorit #rou' co0'are% to the 0a7orit #rou'/ There .ere1 overall1 half as 0an ne#ative behaviors as 'ositive behaviors/ $ecause both the 0inorit #rou' characteristics an% ne#ative charac6 teristics .ere relativel infre"uent1 both .ere %istinctive an% stoo% out/ Consistent .ith the use of the representativeness heuristic1 the lo. nu0ber of ne#ative behaviors ca0e to be seen to be re'resentative of the s0aller #rou'/ These fin%in#s sho. ho. heuristics can1 in so0e 'art1 account for the %evelo'0ent of ne#ative stereot 'es that co0e to be re#ar%e% as stereot 'ical of 0inorit #rou's/

Cate#or structure
As .e %iscusse% above1 cate#ories are %efine% b 'rotot 'es/ Protot 'es are a re'resenta6 tion of the 0ost t 'ical 0e0ber of the cate#or C the easiest e2a0'le to brin# to 0in% or the 0ost available/ Ho.ever1 as Rosch 4<-G>5 note%1 cate#ories have fu&& boun%aries1 an% if cate#ori&in# so0eone %e'en%s u'on assessin# their representativeness to the 'roto6 t 'e then cate#or structure nee%s to reflect this variabilit in t 'icalit / Cate#ories %o in%ee% var not onl in content1 but also in structure C in ter0s of the %e#ree of intra6 cate#or variabilit / (hen the cate#or is heterogeneous it is 'erceive% to be 0a%e u' of 0an %ifferent sorts of 'eo'le/ (hen it is homogeneous it is 'erceive% to be 0a%e u' of onl a fe. t 'es of 'eo'le .ho are all ver si0ilar to each other/ In Cha'ter D .e .ill %iscuss ho. cate#ori&in# 'eo'le into in#rou's an% out#rou's lea%s to an attenuation of intra6cate#or variabilit 1 but here it is 7ust i0'ortant to note that on avera#e this ten%enc to 'erceive #rou' 0e0bers as all si0ilar to each other in inter#rou' conte2ts a''ears to be 0ore a''arent in the .a .e thin" about outgroups1 co0'are% to the .a .e thin" about in#rou's1 a ten%enc referre% to as the outgroup homogeneity effect 4OHE; Hones1 (oo%1 E Muattrone1 <-><5/ This effect is not onl reveale% in si0'le variabilit 7u%#0ents 4e/#/ Par" E Hu%%1 <--A5 but also 'erce'tual 7u%#0ents/ Sha'iro an% Penro% 4<->D51 for instance1 foun% that .hite 'eo'le foun% it %ifficult to tell Ha'anese faces a'art1 an% Ha'anese 'eo'le foun% it %ifficult to tell .hite faces a'art/ The out#rou' ho0o6 #eneit effect is also a''arent in ter0s of ho. 'eo'le structure their 0e0or for #rou's/ Peo'le si0'l re0e0ber more about so0eone the encounter fro0 their o.n #rou' than fro0 another #rou' 4Par" E Rothbart1 <->2; see :i#ure 2/-5/ There are several e2'lanations for the OHE/ The first1 an% 0ost obvious1 is that .e have a 0ore %etaile% an% varie% i0'ression of our o.n social cate#or co0'are% to others because1 +uite si0'l 1 .e have 0ore e2'erience of 'eo'le .ithin our o.n cate#or C .e are 0ore familiar .ith the0 4Linville1 :ischer1 E Salove 1 <->-5/ :or e2a0'le1 ou are 'robabl able to thin" about 0ore %ifferent t 'es of 'eo'le .ho atten% our social 's 6 cholo# class than 'eo'le .ho atten% the en#ineerin# class %o.n the hall/ Althou#h this see0s reasonable it cannot1 ho.ever1 be the .hole stor / :irst1 the OHE is observe% for #rou's that 'eo'le shoul% have e+ual levels of e2'osure to1 such as #en%er 4Cris' E

Social Co#nition
0 ,.< ,.= ,.+ ,.,.. ,.! ,. ,./ ,.0 , (uperordinate 2ngroup Outgroup R e c a l l o f

=-

(ubordinate

'"pe of attribute ((uperordinate N gender> (ubordinate N occupation)

:i#ure 2/- !e0or for cate#or labels an% 0ore %etaile% infor0ation as a function of in#rou' or out#rou' 0e0bershi'/ )ata fro0 Par" an% Rothbart 4<->25/

He.stone1 2AA<; Par" E Rothbart1 <->25/ Secon%1 the OHE is observe% even for artificial #rou's create% in the laborator 4(il%er1 <->@51 .here there is no 'rior contact an% even .hen #rou' 0e0bershi' is totall anon 0ous/ :inall 1 .ith increasin# in#rou' fa0iliarit the OHE shoul% increase1 but often it %oes not 4$ro.n E (ootton6!ill.ar%1 <--,5/

(h )o (e Cate#ori&e*
So .e "no. .hat cate#ories are1 .hat the contain1 an% ho. the are structure%/ $ut .h .oul% .e .ant to use the0* Cate#ories are in so0e .a s the ulti0ate heuristic/ The can be a''lie% to all as'ects of our lives1 fro0 the foo% .e bu in su'er0ar"ets1 throu#h to .hether .e li"e 'ubs or clubs1 cafO3s or restaurants1 .hat careers .e chose1 .here .e live an% .hat .e .ear/ In all of these cases cate#ori&ation %oes t.o thin#s/ :irst1 it saves us ti0e an% co#nitive 'rocessin#; it allo.s us to be a co#nitive 0iser 4:is"e E Ta lor1 <--<5/ Stereot 'in# is fast an% 'rovi%es a lot of infor0ation about 'eo'le .e %o not "no. 4Gilbert E Hi2on1 <--<51 thereb freeing up co#nitive resources for other tas"s 4!acrae1 !ilne1 E $o%enhausen1 <--@5/ E2'en%in# co#nitive resources as chea'l as 'ossible

DA Essential Social Ps cholo# enables 0ore 'ressin# concerns to be %ealt .ith 4Gilbert1 <->-5/ Secon%1 cate#ori&ation clarifies an% refines our 'erce'tion of the .orl%/ Once a cate#or is activate% .e ten% to see 0e0bers as 'ossessin# all the traits associate% .ith the stereot 'e 4( er1 <->>5/ As such1 cate#ori&ation 'rovi%es meaning 4Turner1 Ho##1 Oa"es1 Reicher1 E (etherell1 <->G51 it re%uces uncertaint 4Ho##1 2AAA51 an% hel's us to 're%ict social behavior 4Hei%er1 <-=>51 'rovi%in# 'rescri'tive nor0s for un%erstan% ourselves in relation to others 4Ho##1 2AA25/

(hen )o (e Cate#ori&e*
Given that cate#ori&ation is a t 'e of heuristic1 allo.in# us to conserve co#nitive resources an% act li"e a co#nitive 0iser1 the four con%itions of heuristic use that .e have %iscusse% earlier shoul% all encoura#e the use of cate#ori&ation as a .a of for0in# a +uic" an% eas i0'ression of a 'erson 4i/e/ .hen .e are short of ti0e an% co#nitive resources1 the 'erson is not i0'ortant to IS1 an% there is little infor0ation available5/ There are1 ho.ever1 several factors that ten% to evo"e the use of cate#ori&ation even if .e %on3t consciousl choose to e0'lo it as a strate# of social inference/ Put another .a 1 so0e6 ti0es .e are not 0otivate% tacticians1 but .e .ill be co0'elle% to cate#ori&e .ithout reali&in# it/ There are three "e factors that %eter0ine .hether a cate#or .ill be activate% .ithout our a.areness/ These are temporal primacy 4.e cate#ori&e on the basis of the features .e encounter first; Hones E Goethals1 <-G251 perceptual salience 4.hen %ifference beco0e salient1 e/#/ the sole 0ale on a roo0 of fe0ales; Ta lor et al/1 <-GG51 an% chronic accessibility 4cate#ori&ation in ter0s of so0e cate#ories C race1 a#e1 #en%er C is so co00on that it can beco0e auto0ati&e%; $ar#h E Pratto1 <->D; :is"e E Neuber#1 <--A5/ Interestin#l 1 even .hen .e are tr in# our har%est not to use cate#ories to thin" about other 'eo'le1 ironicall 1 this can lea% us to use the0 even 0ore .ithout "no.in# it/ This is because the ver act of tr 6 in# to su''ress a cate#or stereot 'e 0eans .e have to first1 on so0e level1 thin" about it/ (e %iscuss evi%ence for this stereot 'e su''ression an% reboun% effect in Te2t $o2 2/</

TEPT $OP 2/< (hen Stereot 'es Reboun%

(e are al.a s thin"in# of thin#s that .e 'robabl shoul%n3t be thin"in# about/ (e 0i#ht1 for e2a06 'le1 have the %esire to tell a %isli"e% .or" collea#ue .hat .e reall thin" of the0 or be te0'te% to eat frie% bacon an% e##s for brea"fast even thou#h .e are tr in# to lea% a health lifest le/ (e often %eal .ith these t 'es of situations b activel 'ushin# un.ante% thou#hts out of our 0in%/ Ho.ever1 a series of stu%ies 4e/#/ (e#ner1 <--@5 sho.e% that tr in# to su''ress such thou#hts can1 ironicall 1 increase the e2tent that those thou#hts s'rin# to 0in% once .e sto' activel tr in# to su''ress the0/ !acrae1 $o%enhausen1 !ilne1 an% Hetten 4<--@5 investi#ate% the use of su''res6 sion as a strate# to avoi% usin# stereot 'es/

Social Co#nition

D<

TEPT $OP 2/<

4CONTINIE)5

STI)B <? THE E::ECT O: STEREOTBPE SIPPRESSION ON STEREOTBPING In%er#ra%uate stu%ents .ere sho.n a 'hoto#ra'h of a 0ale s"inhea% an% .ere as"e% to s'en% = 0inutes .ritin# a 'ara#ra'h about a t 'ical %a in the life of that in%ivi%ual/ In the su''ression con%i6 tion1 'artici'ants .ere as"e% to activel avoi% tr in# to thin" about the 'erson in the 'hoto in a stereo6 t 'ical 0anner1 .hereas in the = S control con%ition1 'artici'ants .ere t #iven no such instructions/ After e this initial tas"1 'artici'ants .ere r + e then as"e% to .rite a secon% 'ara6 o #ra'h about a %ifferent 0ale s"in6 t hea%1 but this ti0e .ithout bein# y p #iven an e2'licit instructions/ i In the first 'assa#e1 'artici'ants c . .ho ha% been as"e% to su''ress n Paragraph 0 Paragraph / stereot 'es a''eare% to %o so effectivel 1 .ritin# si#nificantl (uppress )ontrol less stereot 'e% 'ara#ra'hs than 'artici'ants in the control con%ition/ Ho.ever1 su''ressors sho.e% si#nificantl 0ore stereot '6 in# than control 'artici'ants .hen .ritin# the secon% 'ara#ra'h/ STI)B 2? THE E::ECT O: STEREOTBPE SIPPRESSION ON $EHAQIOR Stu% < reveale% that su''ressors sho. 0ore stereot 'in# than non6su''ressors once the .ere no lon#er activel tr in# to su''ress their stereot 'es/ $ut %oes this have i0'lications for behavior to.ar%s 0e0bers of stereot 'e% #rou's* In a secon% stu% 1 'artici'ants .ere once a#ain instructe% to either su'6 'ress stereot 'es or not .hile .ritin# a 'ara#ra'h about a s"in6 hea%/ This ti0e1 after .ritin# the 'ara#ra'h1 the .ere ta"en into a %ifferent roo0 ostensibl to actu6 all 0eet the s"inhea% in the 'ho6 to#ra'h 4althou#h this .as not1 in fact1 #oin# to ha''en5/ In the roo01 there .as a ro. of ei#ht chairs1 an% on the first chair1 there .as a ba# an% 7ac"et/ The researcher re0ar"e% that the belon#e% to
..= ....! ../ . !.= !.!.! !./ ! D i s t a n c e i n (uppress s )ontrol

4Continue%5

D2

Essential Social Ps cholo#

TEPT $OP 2/<

4CONTINIE)5

the 'erson in the 'hoto#ra'h1 .ho .oul% return in a 0o0ent1 an% that the 'artici'ant shoul% sit %o.n an% .ait for his return/ Partici'ants .ho ha% su''resse% their stereot 'es in the 'ara#ra'h sho.e% 0ore %iscri0ina6 tor behavior1 sittin# further a.a fro0 the s"inhea%3s chair than those .ho ha% not su''resse% their initial stereot 'es/ INTERPRETING THE :IN)INGS To su''ress a stereot 'e1 it is necessar to con%uct a 0onitorin# 'rocess1 scannin# conscious6 ness for an trace of the stereot 'e/ This has the unfortunate conse+uence of actuall increasin# its accessibilit / As a result1 .hen an in%ivi%ual is no lon#er activel tr in# to su''ress their stereo6 t 'e1 encounters .ith so0eone .ho is a 0e0ber of the stereot 'e% cate#or .ill result in #reater stereot 'in# an% stereot 'e6consistent behavior than if no atte0't ha% been 0a%e to su''ress the stereot 'e/ !ost 'eo'le "no. that stereot 'es C 'articularl ne#ative ones C are sociall unacce'table an% atte0't to avoi% usin# the0/

In su01 the i0'ortant thin# to note here is that .e %o not al.a s choose to e0'lo a heuristic over a s ste0atic strate# / Instea%1 so0ethin# li"e 'erce'tual salience 4.hich .e also %iscusse% earlier5 can so0eti0es 0ean cate#ories affect our 7u%#0ents of others .ith6 out us even reali&in# it/ (e %iscuss these i0'licit effects on i0'ression for0ation in 0ore %etail in Cha'ter D/

Conse+uences of Cate#ori&ation
Cate#ori&ation t 'icall lea%s to hei#htene% accessibilit of stereotype consistent infor0ation an% selective enco%in# of subse+uentl ac+uire% tar#et infor0ation/ Cohen 4<-><51 for instance1 sho.e% 'artici'ants a vi%eota'e of a .o0an havin# a birth%a %inner/ Partici'ants .ere tol% that she .as either a .aitress or a librarian/ In the for0er case1 'artici'ants subse+uentl ha% better recall for seein# the .o0an on the vi%eota'e drin#ing beer 4behavior associate% 0ore .ith the cate#or waitress5/ In the latter case 'artici6 'ants subse+uentl ha% better recall of the .o0an wearing glasses 4behavior associate% 0ore .ith the cate#or librarian5/ This illustrates ho. stereot 'es can influence our atten6 tion an% .hat .e re0e0ber fro0 an social scene/ :or both #rou's of 'artici'ants the vi%eota'e .as the sa0e1 but si0'l bein# tol% that the 'erson the .ere about to see .as a either a librarian or .aitress le% 'artici'ants to re0e0ber .hat the sa. in a co0'letel %ifferent .a / The cate#ori&ation infor0ation 0a%e the0 evaluate the scene throu#h t.o alternative lenses/

Social Co#nition D,

Cate#ori&ation an% 're7u%ice

These stereot 'e6consistent biases %o not onl a''l to relativel neutral cate#ories li"e 8librarian9 but also to 0ore i0'ortant social %istinctions1 such as those for0e% on the basis of race or ethnicit / Gaertner an% !cLau#hlin 4<->,5 foun% that .hite 'artici'ants .ere faster to na0e 'ositive .or%s 48s0art91 8a0bitious95 after the ha% seen the racial cate6 #or 8.hite9 co0'are% to 8blac"9/ Peo'le also recall 0ore 'ositive than ne#ative infor6 0ation about so0eone in their o.n #rou'1 but 0ore ne#ative than 'ositive infor0ation about so0eone in another #rou' 4Ho.ar% E Rothbart1 <->A5/ These 'ositive versus ne#a6 tive stereot 'es associate% .ith %ifferent social #rou's are therefore hi#hl %ivisive1 an% can contribute to continuin# 'roble0s of racial 're7u%ice an% %iscri0ination1 a to'ic .e %iscuss in %e'th in Cha'ter D/ )es'ite the 'o.er of stereot 'es to bias 'erce'tion to.ar%s stereot 'e6consistent inter6 'retations1 there are so0e e2ce'tions to this rule1 an% so0eti0es stereotype-inconsistent infor0ation is better re0e0bere% 4Hastie E Fu0ar1 <-G-5/ Inconsistent infor0ation is salient an% attention6#rabbin#1 so for this reason it is so0eti0es .ell re0e0bere%/ Ho.ever1 the 'rocess of reco#ni&in# an% re0e0berin# inconsistent infor0ation re+uires cognitive effort/ Co#nitive overloa% C a con%ition that encoura#es the use of heuristics C lea%s 'eo'le to use cate#ories an% associate% stereot 'es1 thereb re%ucin# 0e0or for inconsistent infor6 0ation 4Srull1 <-><5/ Even if stereot 'e inconsistent infor0ation is re0e0bere%1 it .ill often be re0e0bere% as an exception to the rule1 a 8subtype9 4He.stone1 !acrae1 Griffiths1 !ilne1 E $ro.n1 <--@5 of the overall stereot 'e 4e/#/ the one librarian .ho does %rin" beer5/ Subt 'in# can actuall 'reserve an% 'er'etuate the overall stereot 'e b ne#atin# the i0'act of stereot 'e6%isconfir0in# infor0ation 4it %oes not have to challen#e the e2istin# stereot 'e if it is 'lace% in a ne. subcate#or 5/ Havin# sai% this1 if enou#h stereot 'e6inconsistent infor6 0ation is subt 'e%1 the nu0ber of e2ce'tions .ill eventuall be too #reat for the overall stereot 'e to re0ain insulate%1 lea%in# to a re6%efinition of the cate#or 'rotot 'e/ (e %iscuss ho. these 'rocesses lea% to stereot 'e chan#e in 0ore %e'th in Cha'ter D/

Cate#ori&ation an% Inconscious $ehaviour

(hen 'eo'le thin" about cate#ories the can unconsciousl be#in to act in line .ith the stereot 'e associate% .ith those cate#ories1 a 'heno0enon "no.n as behavioural assimi- lation 4$ar#h et al/1 <--D5/ $ar#h an% collea#ues con%ucte% several stu%ies that establishe% the behavioral assi0ilation effect/ In a classic e2'eri0ent the observe% that 'ri0in# stereot 'es of 8el%erl 'eo'le9 0a%e 'artici'ants subse+uentl .al" 0ore slo.l ; in other .or%s1 it 0a%e the0 act li"e an el%erl 'erson/ :ull %etails of this stu% can be foun% in Te2t $o2 2/2/ In another e2'eri0ent 'artici'ants .ere 7u%#e% to have behave% in a 0ore hostile 0anner .hen a co0'uter error occurre% %urin# a stu% after the ha% been subliminally primed .ith 'hoto#ra'hs of African A0ericans 4for .ho0 there is an asso6 ciate% stereot 'e of 8hostile95 than if the ha% been subli0inall 'ri0e% .ith 'hoto#ra'hs of Caucasian faces/ In none of these stu%ies %i% 'artici'ants e2'ress an "no.le%#e that the ha% been 'ri0e% b the cate#or in +uestion1 nor ha% an a.areness of its influence on their subse+uent behavior/

D@

Essential Social Ps cholo#

TEPT $OP 2/2 Thin"in# About Ol% Peo'le Can !a"e ou (al" !ore Slo.l
In a classic stu% 1 $ar#h1 Chen1 an% $urro.s 4<--D5 investi#ate% .hether 'ri0in# 'artici'ants .ith a social cate#or 4el%erl 5 .oul% lea% 'artici'ants to behave in line .ith the traits stereot 'icall associate% .ith that cate#or / !ETHO) In%er#ra%uate stu%ents co0'lete% a 8scra0ble% sentence9 tas"1 0a"in# #ra00aticall correct sentences out of a series of ran%o0l or%ere% .or%s1 su''ose%l as a test of lan#ua#e 'roficienc / In the el%erl con%ition1 .or%s relate% to the el%erl stereot 'e .ere e0be%%e% in the tas"1 such as 8ol%91 8lonel 91 8#re 91 8senti0ental9 an% 8.ise9 .hereas in the control con%ition1 neutral .or%s1 such as 8thirst 91 8clean91 an% 8'rivate9 .ere e0be%%e% in the tas"/ After co0'letin# this tas"1 'artici'ants .ere tol% that the e2'eri0ent .as over an% .ere %irecte% to the elevator %o.n the hall/ A confe%erate sittin# in a chair in the hall use% a hi%%en sto'.atch to ti0e ho. lon# the confe%erate too" to .al" fro0 the e2'eri0ental roo0 to the elevator/ RESILTS
< T i m e t o w a l t *eutral

Partici'ants .ho ha% been 'ri0e% .ith the el%erl stereot 'e .al"e% si#nificantl = 0ore slo.l fro0 the than 'artici'ants in the control con%ition/ INTERPRETING THE :IN)INGS Pri0in# 'artici'ants .ith a social cate#or 4el%erl 5 that is associate% .ith a 'articular stereot 'ical trait

e2'eri0ental roo0 to the elevator

+

$lderl"

4slo.ness5 increases the e2tent to .hich 'artici'ants behave in line .ith that trait1 a 'heno0enon "no.n as behavioural assi0ilation/ Criticall these fin%in#s e0er#e% %es'ite the fact that the .or%s associate% .ith el%erl %i% not inclu%e an reference to slo.ness/ It a''ears that the cate6 #or Rel%erl 3 increase% accessibilit of stereot 'es associate% .ith the cate#or 1 inclu%in# slo.6 ness/ $ut .h %oes activatin# a 'articular stereot 'e lea% 'eo'le to behave in line .ith that stereot 'e* Ps cholo#ists have ar#ue% that stereot 'ical behavioral res'onses are 0entall re'6 resente% in a si0ilar .a to other social infor0ation li"e trait conce'ts1 stereot 'es an% attitu%es/ Su''ortin# this i%ea1 the sa0e area of the 're0otor corte2 is active .hen hu0ans 'erceive an action an% .hen the 'erfor0 that action the0selves 4$uccino et al/1 2AA<5/

Social Co#nition D= Activatin# cate#or infor0ation 0a influence behavior as .ell as i0'ression for0ation because behavioral res'onses are 0entall re'resente% in a si0ilar .a to other social infor0ation li"e trait conce'ts1 stereot 'es an% attitu%es 4Chartran% E $ar#h1 <---; )i7"sterhuis E van Fni''enber#1 <-->5/ In%ee%1 there is neuro's cholo#ical evi%ence for this lin"; the sa0e area of the 're60otor corte2 is active .hen hu0ans 'erceive an action an% .hen the 'erfor0 that action the0selves 4$uccino et al/1 2AA<5/ Subse+uent research b )i7"sterhuis an% van Fni''enber# 4<-->5 %e0onstrate% that the behavioral assi0ilation effect can occur also on 0ore co0'le2 social behaviors/ The foun% that 'artici'ants .ho i0a#ine% a t 'ical professor 4associate% .ith the stereot 'e 8intelli#ent95 subse+uentl out'erfor0e% those .ho i0a#ine% a t 'ical secretary1 on a #eneral "no.le%#e tas"/ In e2'lainin# ho. 'ri0in# can influence co0'le2 behaviors1 )i7"sterhuis an% van Fni''enber# 4<-->5 ar#ue% that althou#h intelli#ence is an abstract conce't rather than a concrete behavior1 behavioral re'resentations are li"el to be hier6 archicall structure%1 .hereb the abstract conce't 8intelli#ence9 is associate% .ith a series of behavioral 'atterns1 such as concentration1 careful consideration of infor0ation an% systematic thin#ing/ Thus1 althou#h 'ri0in# .oul% not have chan#e% 'artici'ants3 actual level of intelli#ence or "no.le%#e1 it 0a have te0'oraril in%uce% 'artici'ants to behave %ifferentl in their reaction to the 0ulti'le choice tas"/ Pri0in# 'artici'ants .ith 8intelli#ent9 0a have1 for e2a0'le1 subconsciousl in%uce% concentration1 le% to the use of 0ore varie% strate#ies an% a%%itional cues1 an% increase% confi%ence1 all of .hich 0a have affecte% 'erfor0ance/

Cate#ori&ation an% Self6efficac

The t 'e of behavioral assi0ilation effects outline% above can a%versel i0'act on our aca%e0ic 'erfor0ance1 .hen ne#ative 'erfor0ance stereot 'es %efine our o.n #rou's/ Stereotype threat is %efine% as the 're%ica0ent felt b 'eo'le in situations .here the coul% confor0 to ne#ative stereot 'es associate% .ith their o.n #rou' 0e0bershi' 4Steele1 <--G5/ The result of this fear of confor0in# to threatenin# stereot 'es is that in%ivi%uals 0a un%er'erfor0 on a tas" associate% .ith the threatene% %o0ain/ :or e2a0'le1 .o0en 0a un%er'erfor0 on a 0ath test or African A0ericans 0a un%er'er6 for0 on an intelli#ence test because the are a.are that there is a stereot 'e that their cate#or is not su''ose% to be as #oo% as a co0'arison cate#or on such tas"s 4e/#/ 0athe0atics abilit is a %i0ension u'on .hich 0en an% .o0en are stereot 'icall e2'ecte% to %iffer5/ Steele an% Aronson 4<--=51 for e2a0'le1 foun% that African A0ericans un%er'erfor0e% on a test .hen the .ere tol% it .as in%icative of intelli6 #ence1 but the also foun% that si0'l as"in# African A0ericans to state their race before ta"in# a test re%uce% the stu%ents3 subse+uent 'erfor0ance/ !ore %etails of these effects can be foun% in Te2t $o2 2/,/

DD

Essential Social Ps cholo#

TEPT $OP 2/, Stereot 'e Threat an% Gen%er I%entification

Nu0erous stu%ies have %e0onstrate% the stereot 'e threat effect/ This is .here in%ivi%uals .ho are 0a%e a.are of a ne#ative stereot 'e associate% .ith a #rou' to .hich the belon# suffer fro0 i0'aire% 'erfor0ance on relevant tas"s/ Sch0a%er 42AA25 e2ten%e% research on stereot 'e threat b investi#atin# one factor that 0i#ht 0a"e 'eo'le 0ore or less susce'tible to stereot 'e threat effects? the e2tent to .hich an in%ivi%ual i%entifies .ith a 'articular #rou'/ !ETHO) At the be#innin# of the se0ester1 fe0ale an% 0ale 'artici'ants in%icate% ho. i0'ortant their #en%er i%entit .as to the0/ At a later %ate1 the ca0e to the laborator to un%erta"e a %ifficult 0aths test/ A 0ale researcher infor0e% 'artici'ants that he .as %evelo'in# a 0aths e2a01 an% .as intereste% in each in%ivi%ual3s 'erfor0ance on the test1 .hich he .oul% be co0'arin# .ith the 'erfor0ance of other stu%ents/ Partici'ants .ere then assi#ne% to one of t.o con%itions/ In the #en%er i%entit relevant con%ition1 the researcher .ent on to infor0 'artici'ants that he .as inter6 este% in ho. .o0en 'erfor0e% on the test co0'are% to 0en1 an% that he .oul% be usin# their score as an in%ication of their #en%er3s #eneral 0aths abilit / In the #en%er i%entit irrelevant con%ition1 'artici'ants receive% no further instructions/ RESILTS (here #en%er i%entit .as not 0a%e relevant to 'erfor0ance1 there .ere no si#nificant %ifferences bet.een 0en an% .o0en3s 'erfor0ance on the 0aths test1 re#ar%less of .hether #en%er .as an i0'ortant 'art of 'artici'ants3 i%entit / In contrast1 .hen #en%er i%entit .as 0a%e relevant to 'erfor6 0ance1 a stereot 'e threat effect occurre%? .o0en 'erfor0e% si#nificantl .orse than 0en on the 0aths test/ Ho.ever1 this effect onl occurre% if 'artici'ants hi#hl i%entifie% .ith their #en%er #rou'/
+ + P e r f o r m a n . ! P e r f o r m a n 7ow !dentification 5igh

. !

/ 0

/ 0 7ow

!dentification ?en

5igh

:omen

?en

:omen

GEN)ER I)ENTITB NOT RELEQANT

GEN)ER I)ENTITB RELEQANT

Social Co#nition

DG

TEPT $OP 2/,

INTERPRETING THE :IN)INGS

4CONTINIE)5

Accor%in# to social i%entit theori&in#1 in%ivi%uals confor0 0ore to their #rou'3s nor0s .hen 4a5 that #rou' i%entit is salient an% 4b5 .hen the are accusto0e% to thin"in# about the0selves as a #rou' 0e0ber 4i/e/ the are a hi#h i%entifier5/ In this stu% 1 .o0en for .ho0 #en%er i%entit .as not 'articularl i0'ortant %i% not feel threatene% b havin# a ne#ative stereot 'e about their #rou' 0a%e salient1 so their 'erfor0ance on the 0aths test %i% not suffer/ In contrast1 .hen #en%er i%en6 tit .as a central 'art of their self6conce't there .as a stereot 'e threat effect? the 'erfor0e% .orse on the 0aths test/ This fin%in# 0a"es sense accor%in# to .hat .e "no. about #rou' nor0s an% social i%entit / The fe0ale 'artici'ants .ere a.are of the stereot 'e that .o0en .ere not as #oo% as 0en on 0aths tests/ The threat 4a state co0'arison bet.een .o0en an% 0en51 'ri0e% their fe0ale i%entit 1 es'eciall for fe0ale 'artici'ants .ho .ere use% to thin"in# about their fe0ale i%entit 4hi#h i%entifiers5/ This le% these 'artici'ants to act in line .ith their #rou' nor0? the actuall 'erfor0e% .orse than nor0al on the 0aths test/

)ual Process Theories

In this last section .e %iscuss 0o%els that have atte0'te% to 'rovi%e an inte#rative fra0e6 .or" .ithin .hich to un%erstan% all of the i0'ression for0ation 'rocesses that .e have %iscusse% above/ $re.er3s 4<->>5 dual process theory an% :is"e an% Neuber#3s 4<--A5 continuum model both consi%er i0'ression for0ation to co0'rise t.o %istinct 'rocesses? categorization an% individuation/ $re.er ar#ues that either a heuristic 4cate#or 5 versus s ste0atic 4in%ivi%uate%5 a''roach is use% .hen for0in# i0'ressions of others1 an% this %istinction 0a's %irectl on to the co#nitive 0iser versus nave scientist a''roaches .e have %iscusse% in this cha'ter/ :is"e an% Neuber#3s 0o%el is si0ilar an% conce'tuali&e% as a continuum .here one e2tre0it is cate#or 6base% 4heuristic5 'rocessin# an% the other is attribute6base% 4s ste0atic5 'rocessin#/ On this continuu0 'eo'le can be 'erceive% as a re'resentative of a #rou'1 or as an in%ivi%ual se'arate fro0 an cate#or 0e0bershi' 4see :i#ure 2/<A5/

" continuum of category # attribute impression formation )ategori@ation AAA Decategorization AAA 2ndividuation

:i#ure 2/<A A continuu0 of i0'ression for0ation

D> Essential Social Ps cholo# :is"e an% Neuber# ar#ue that 'eo'le be#in the 'rocess of i0'ression for0ation b a%o'tin# a co#nitive 0iser 0o%e of 'rocessin#? the tr to fit the tar#et 'erson to a cate#or 4for instance1 usin# the representativeness heuristic5/ If1 ho.ever1 there is not a #oo% fit bet.een the cate#or an% tar#et then 'erceivers .ill shift to.ar%s an in%ivi%uate% 0o%e of 'erce'tion1 0ovin# alon# the continuu01 an% invo"in# an attribute6base% a''roach/ Si0ilarl 1 $re.er ar#ues that the 0o%e of 'erce'tion .ill chan#e fro0 the use of cate#or 6base% heuristics to a s ste0atic1 in%ivi%uate% 0o%e of 'erce'tion un%er con%itions that either favor1 or %o not favor1 one over the other/ This s.itch in 'rocessin# fro0 usin# cate#ori&ation to in%ivi%uation can be ter0e% decat- egori!ation/ If %ecate#ori&ation has occurre% the tar#et 'erson shoul% be 'ri0aril %efine% as an in%ivi%ual rather than as a #rou' 0e0ber1 .hich shoul% re0ove cate#or 6 base% bias/ Previous research has foun% %ecate#ori&ation to be associate% .ith less stereot 'in# an% less unfair attribution of ne#ative characteristics because the 7u%#0ent is 0a%e on an a''recia6 tion of in%ivi%ual1 'ersonal 0erit1 rather than 're6conceive% stereot 'ic e2'ectancies 4e/#/ $re.er E !iller1 <->@; Frue#er E Rothbart1 <->>5/ )ecate#ori&ation also allo.s the 'er6 ceiver to %evelo' a 0ore 'ersonali&e% an% less ho0o#eneous 'erce'tion of in#rou' an% out6 #rou' 0e0bers 4Ensari E !iller1 2AA<; :is"e E Neuber#1 <->-51 re%ucin# out#rou' ho0o#eneit an% %e6biasin# social 'erce'tion/ (e %iscuss .a s in .hich social 's cholo6 #ists have ca'itali&e% on the i%ea of this continuu0 0o%el1 %evelo'in# .a s of encoura#in# %ecate#ori&ation an% re%uctions in stereot 'in# an% bias1 in Cha'ter D/

Su00ar
In this section .e have %iscusse% social categori!ation1 an e2tre0el .ell6use% heuristic/ Cate#ories are .a s of 'uttin# 'eo'le an% thin#s into %ifferent bo2es1 an% co0e .ith e2'ectations1 prototypes1 or stereotypes about .hat the t 'ical 0e0ber of that cate#or .ill be li"e/ Stereot 'es can for0 .hen 'eo'le 'erceive an illusory correlation bet.een ne#ative attributes an% #rou' si&e/ Cate#or structures can also be biase%1 as illustrate% b the outgroup homogeneity effect1 the ten%enc to 'erceive out#rou' 0e0bers as all si0ilar to each other/ Peo'le use cate#ories an% stereot 'es because1 as heuristics1 the are fast an% 'rovi%e a lot of infor0ation about 'eo'le .e %o not "no./ Cate#ories can beco0e salient for reasons of temporal primacy1 perceptual salience or chronic accessibility/ Cate#ori&ation1 .hile co#nitivel useful1 can have a %a0a#in# effect on societies %ue to their ten%enc to be biase% an% lea% to 're7u%ice/ This is because cate#or activation can lea% to hei#htene% accessibilit of stereotype-consistent infor0ation an% selective enco%6 in# of ne#ative infor0ation 4es'eciall of 0inorit #rou' 0e0bers5/ Thin"in# about cate6 #ories can also lea% us to behave in line .ith stereot 'es associate% .ith those cate#ories1 .ithout an a.areness .e are %oin# this/ This t 'e of behavioral assimilation can occur .hen thin"in# about either cate#ories .e are 0e0bers of or cate#ories .e are not 0e06 bers of/ :inall 1 if .e are 0e0bers of a cate#or that 'ossesses a ne#ative 'erfor0ance stereot 'e1 in conte2ts .here our cate#or 0e0bershi' is salient1 .e 0a be a%versel affecte% b this stereot 'e/ This ten%enc is calle% stereotype threat/

Social Co#nition

D-

:h"& 0. )ognitivel" efficient /. Provides meaning

SOCIAL COGNITION

(O)2#7 )#'$9O12B#'2O*

)ontent& 2llusor" correlation :hen& 0. 'emporal primac" /. Perceptual salience . )hronic accessibilit"

(tructure& Cariabilit" )onse8uences

PreDudice

(tereot"pe threat

#ssimilation and contrast

:i#ure 2/<<

!e0or !a'

SI!!ARB
In this cha'ter .e have %iscusse% ho. 'eo'le can be nave scientists1 rationall an% lo#icall ta"in# their ti0e to 'rocess infor0ation about others in a careful an% s ste0atic .a / Alternativel 1 the can be co#nitive 0isers1 choosin# C or bein# i0'licitl co0'elle% C to use strate#ies of social inference that favor ease an% s'ee%1 but .hich at best onl a''ro26 i0ate an accurate reflection of social realit an%1 at .orst1 'ro'a#ate the e2istence of unfair ne#ative stereot 'es about 'articular #rou's/ (e have seen ho. 'eo'le can be nave sci- entists an% en#a#e in co0'le2 attribution calculations base% on co0binin# infor0ation relatin# to consensus, consistency an% distinctiveness/ $ut .e have also seen ho. in 0an cases 'eo'le %o not use these co0'le2 rules1 an% %o not #o throu#h an elaborate 'rocess .hen for0in# an i0'ression of others/ Instea% a nu0ber of attribution 8errors9 are

)hoice

Correspondent inference t$eory

(ocial desirabilit" *on-common effects

)onsensus

"TTR!%&T!'N"( %!"SES

(elf-serving attributions

)onsensus

)onsensus

:h"& 'he fundamental attribution 0. )ognitivel" efficient /. Provides meaning

5$412('2)(

COGNITION

)#'$9O12B#'2O*

1epresentativeness #vailabilit" $euristic processing 0. 'ime /. )ognitive over load . 2mportance !. 2nformation

)ontent& 2llusor" correlation

:hen& primac" /. Perceptual salience . )hronic accessibilit"

)onse8uences

'he false consensus effect

#nchoring

PreDudice 'he na;ve scientist 'he cognitive miser

(tereot"pe threat #ssimilation and contrast

:i#ure 2/<2 !e0or !a'

C r i s p 3 4 8 5 C h a p t e r 0 2 . q x d

1 0 /

Crisp-3485-Chapter-02.qxd

10/12/2006

8:49 PM

Page 71

Social Co#nition

G<

a''arent1 such as the fundamental attribution error, the actor-observer bias1 an% self-serving attributions1 all of .hich in%icate a reliance on 0ore basic infor0ation? e2ternal cues li"e 'erce'tual salience1 or internal 0otivations li"e self6estee0 0ainte6 nance/ Reliance on these si0'le cues to 0a"e +uic" an% eas 7u%#0ents are illustrative of the cognitive miser approach1 an% heuristics such as representativeness an% availability sho. ho. 'ervasive these strate#ies can be/ (e have seen ho. 'erceiver 0otivations as the relate to ti0e1 co#nitive bus ness1 i0'ortance an% infor0ation can %eter0ine .hich strate# is a%o'te%1 but also ho. conte2tual factors li"e te0'oral 'ri0ac or %is6 tinctiveness can i0'licitl orient us to usin# heuristic strate#ies li"e social cate#ori&ation/ :inall 1 .e have %iscusse% the use of social categori!ation as one of the 0ost .i%e6 ran#in# heuristics use% in social 'erce'tion/ (e have also %iscusse% ho. the re'resentative6 ness heuristic can e2'lain ho. illusory correlations %evelo'1 biasin# the cate#or content use% to %efine 0inorit #rou's/ (e have seen ho. cate#ories var aroun% prototypes1 an% ho. 'rotot 'icalit C stereot 'icalit C can be %efine% b the availabilit heuristic/ %amiliarity can cause outgroup homogeneity1 .hich co0'oun%s the e2tent to .hich out6 #rou' 0e0bers are seen to confor0 to stereot 'ical characteristics/ In this cha'ter .e have also %iscusse% ho. activation of cate#ories lea%s to biase% 'rocessin# in favor of stereot 'e6 consistent infor0ation 4an% ho. stereot 'e6inconsistent infor0ation is subt 'e% so as to insu6 late the overall stereot 'e fro0 chan#e51 ho. stereotypes can influence our behavior1 an% ho. a.areness of the ne#ative stereot 'es that %efine our o.n #rou's can so0eti0es have a ne#6 ative i0'act on even our aca%e0ic 'erfor0ance/ :inall 1 .e have %iscusse% dual-process models that brin# to#ether the co#nitive 0iser an% nave scientist a''roachesCsho.in# ho. i0'ression for0ation can rel on heuristic1 cate#orical 'rocessin#1 or 0ore s ste0atic in%i6 vi%uate% 'rocessin#1 an% ho. encoura#in# decategori!ation 0a be a 0eans of counterin# all of the ne#ative i0'acts of cate#ori&ation that .e have %iscusse% in this cha'ter/

Su##este% :urther Rea%in#

:is"e1 S/T/ E Ta lor1 S/E/ 4<--<5/ $ocial cognition %&nd ed!'/ Ne. Bor"? !cGra.6Hill/ He.stone1 !/ 4<->-5/ Causal attribution( )rom cognitive processes to collective beliefs/ O2for%? $lac".ell/ Fun%a1 L/ 4<---5/ $ocial cognition/ Ca0bri%#e1 !A? !IT Press/

Fe Muestions
Ho. %o 'eo'le e2'lain their o.n an% other 'eo'le3s behaviors* Are 'eo'le co#nitive 0isers or nave scientists* Ho. %oes cate#ori&ation bias social 'erce'tion*