Cognitive Development

11/8/2010 8:59:00 AM

Developmental Psychology? Are children just adults with big heads? How do the minds of children differ from those of adults? One possibility: Adults are just better trained adults Another: Adults are fundamentally different from how children are Errors of Scale Children below 3 years old have skewed representations of space Difficulty using symbols Difficulty understanding scale Children trying to fit in toy car, sit on toy sofa Developmental Methods Infant Challenges: o They dont speak o They can't follow instructions o Ethical issues (i.e. consent) o Short attention spans Habituation: o Babies attend to novel things o Eventually they get bored by repetition (take advantage of short attention span!) o If they suddenly regain interest, they think something novel has occurred! Sucking responses o Babies tend to suck more on a pacifier when excited/interested! Way to get measure of interest o Rooting reflex-move mouth towards something to suck on Looking times-babies look more at things they are interested in Piaget (with guest lecturer) One of the first developmental psychologists Argued that development progresses in stages Games for guest Lecturer o Conservation of Mass Dont understand concept of mass vs size (Play Doh squished changes mass?) Young children think that objects gain and lose volume o Conservation of Volume

o o o

Thinks there is more liquid in graduated cylinder than beaker because of height Conservation of Number If chips take up the same amount of space, think that there are the same amount Class Inclusion Are there more white chips than chips? Perspective Taking Think other people can see the same things they can False Belief

If I believe something to be true, others must think it to be true. Once they know something, cant imagine other people (or even themselves) not knowing Stage Based Models o Features of Stage Based Models Qualitative Differences Structured Wholes-not just one domain this happens in; i.e. if child hasnt learned conservation, cant conserve mass, volume, etc Invariant Sequence-There is a specific order of stages everyone goes through Universal Sequence-doesnt matter what culture you come from; all children go through same stages Hierarchical integration-we dont forget what we knew earlier, but rather build upon it o Piagets Model (Book p. 70) Sensorimotor (<2 years) object permanence (put something behind your back, no longer there), physical cause/effect relationships, the self Preoperational (2-7 years) language learning, egocentric thinking, no conservation Concrete operational (7-11 years) develops the ability to conserve, basic logic, categorization Formal operational (>11 years) Abstract reasoning o Preoperational Terms see ppt for definitions!!

 Conservation Egocentric thinking Innateness debate What have we learned and what are we born with What is innate? o Age old arguments abound: Language Naive Physics Theory of Mind Intuitive Math (number) o All of these are controversial o PPT animation-table, hold ball over it; if ball goes through the table, they react! Babies know that solid object cant pass through another solid object Month old infants have longer looking times at the impossible event! Argument for innateness But wait! Could this be learned? Is there an analogy to transitional probabilities for physics? o Object perception Project Prakash-Do you have to learn to see or are you born with the ability to do so? Can we do object recognition automatically? People are given sight at age of 20! Cant just tell square and circle apart Learn what things are units by movement Theory of Mind What children dont know o Perspective Taking o Appearance Reality o False Belief Perspective taking o Heres an example from a telephone conversation with a three year-old boy What are you doing today?

Playing with this. What is this? THIS! Appearance reality o It looks like a rock, but its really a sponge o It looks like someone I can play with (Mirror) What children do know o Attention, goal directed action, desire, emotion, preference o etc etc; See ppt o Emotion-the visual cliff (glass table, next to it there is a checkerboard pattern; if on the other side, mother looks nervous-child stops, if she looks welcoming-child will go past the visual cliff) o Goal directed action-distinguishing goal directed action from mere movement; intentionally vs unintentionally o Focus of attention-What are these penguins looking at?

Social Development

11/8/2010 8:59:00 AM

How do children differ from adults in social reasoning? Moral Development Behaviorist Theories o Conscience is that small inner voice that tells you that someone may be watching H.L. Mencken This is the view that morality is what we do because well be punished if we dont do it. o The Character Education Project What didnt help Practicing helpful behavior In class moral reasoning discussions What did help Reward and Punishment (with caveat will do things only as long as they are being observed and the reward and punishment continues) o Stage Based Models Features Qualitative differences Structured wholes Invariant sequence Universal sequence Hierarchical integration Piagets Theories Heteronomous morality (young children) Consequences of an action Morality determined by sanctions Absolute judgments Punishment as retribution Immanent Justice (bad punished, good not) Autonomous Morality (what older kids believe) Intentions of actor Morality independent of sanctions Relative judgments Punishment for retribution and reform Mature casual understanding (if I do good, I wont necessarily get rewarded right away)

Which act was the naughtier act, and why? Bad intentions, small mess up vs good intentions, big mess up 5 yr olds think bad punishments, good not Kohlbergs Theories Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation 2: Instrumental/Relativist Orientation (Overall goodness/badness of result) 3: Interpersonal Concordance Orientation (How will other people view me) 4: Law and Order Orientation (This is illegal! Societys views of me) 5: Social Contract Orientation (Utilitarian view; what is the best for the most people) 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation (Every person is equal in value; look to universal good; very few people make it to this stage) See PPT for differences between stages There are differences between cultures on how quickly they move between stages; this has to do with differences b/w cultural norms of morality Psuedo stage model Stage 4 Stage 1Stage 2Stage 3 Stage 5 Stage 6

Attachment Harlows Moonkeys o Monkeys prefer cloth mother even when wire mother provides food! o Created wire monkey and terrycloth monkey; monkeys cuddled with terrycloth and only went to wire for food o Monkeys raised by cloth mothers act fundamentally differently from those raised by wire mothers o Critical periods for attachment! o Max maternal deprivation before recovery impossible: 90 day Strange Situation

o o o o o o o o o

Mother and baby enter strange room (3 minutes to explore) Stranger enters, plays with baby (3 minutes) Mother leaves baby with stranger (3 minutues) Mother leaves baby with stranger (3 minutes) Mother returns, stranger leaves (3 minutes) Mother leaves baby alone (3 minutes) Stranger returns, tries to settle baby (3 minutes) Mother returns Insecure avoidant-dont react when mom leaves room or comes back; more focused on environment than relationship

o Insecure ambivalent-difficulty disengaging from mother; extreme distress when mother leaves, difficulty being comforted o Secure-use mother as secure base; some distress when mother leaves, but easily comforted o There is, in fact, movement between these stages but overall, avoidants have difficulty forming strong relationship, ambivalents are clingy in relationships (drives people away) Adult attachment

o See questions on ppt Personality Differences Self Theories o Entity theories-intelligence (and other traits)=fixed quantity Shy away from difficult challenges Give up on tasks after small failures Place high value on success, law value on working hard o Incremental theories-intelligence (and other traits) is a skill that is learned over time Not threatened by failure Seek out challenges Place high value on hard work o Praising students for success versus praising students for effort can change how people behave o Theories of self not just domains of intelligence Emotional Intelligence

o On marshmallows and SAT scores; says he will leave the room, if you eat marshmallow ok. If you dont, youll get two later on; but instead, he only sees how long the kid will take to break; length of waiting time at 4 years old, predicts SAT scores at 18 later on Lifespan Development Bad things about old age: o Memory declines o Cognitive declines o Physical abilities decline o Health declines And yet older people are consistently happier! Good things about old age: o Better emotion regulation o Better time management o Better perspective o Better management of time to maximize enjoyed activities! Spending time with people we care about makes us happiest in life!

Social Influence

11/8/2010 8:59:00 AM

Regrade request deadline: December 1st Compliance, conformity, obedience Asch brings people into room, shows them lineswhich have you seen before? Easy study when done individually; But person is actually brought into room with confederates (paid actors); over a third of the participants conformedno reward/punishment for not! Social Roles o Stanford Prison Study Zimbardo simulated prison; half of people were guards, half were prisoners; went through real prison-esque arrest, etc; social roles people were assigned to changed them; guard were cruel, prisoners were meek, had to be discontinued after a week b/c became unethical o Abu Ghraib Soldiers were in charge of (war?) prisoners; resorted to torture; power of situation is so strong, people engage in shocking behaviors Obedience o Milgram Study-even nice people hurt others Say that study is about learning; there is another person in room (confederate); other person is supposed to be learner, you are teacher and supposed to see if learning by punishment; have to give shocks that get progressively worse until confederate seemingly dies No commands <3% % went all the way: Baseline 60%; victim touch 30%; Ally rebels 10%; Remote Authority 20%; Hofling Nurse Study 95% (old age home, gave order that would have killed patient, and nurses obeyed) Bystander nonintervention Kitty Genovese o 1964-Kitty attacked at 3 am in the middle of NY o Assaulted, raped, murdered o Attack lasted approx. 35 minutes

o 38 witnesses observed the crimenobody bothered to intervene or call the police Noticing-you cant help if you dont notice the problem Interpreting-knowing that an ambiguous event requires intervention; (maybe Genovese event was filming, prank?) Pluralistic ignorance-other peoples lack of a reaction is a cue that nothing is wrong (dont want to look like were overreacting but secretly checking what other people are doing but everyone trying to look cool) o Classic study-smoke in room; more people there are, less chance someone will react Taking responsibility-an individuals belief that his/her intervention is necessary to fix things Diffusion of responsibility-every person believes that someone else will deal with the problem Overcoming Diffusion of Responsibility: o Singling out an individual On beach, someone steals radio someone responds only if one person is signaled out to watch it Person (confederate) is about to have seizure; takes much longer to respond if one person isnt singled out Deciding how to help-if people cannot think of a way to help they wont do so Audience inhibition-worrying about how others will view you if you intervene involved in helping Princeton Seminary Study o Priests-in-training asked to prepare a talk on the good Samaritan o On they way to deliver the talk, they come across an obviously distressed man o Some priests were told that they have plenty of time until talk starts, some that they were just on time, some they were running late o How much time they had left influenced if they studied

Factors

Mood effects: good mood-help other and then if people help, they are in good moodcyclical; donate to charity more on sunny days Characteristics of person in need: attractiveness, similarity to us, attributions of responsibility, closeness (friends, family, etc) Norm of Self-Interest o Learning econ makes you less helpful Norm of Social Responsibility o In India, people feel obligated to stranger in need more; for extreme cases, both US and India help, but for mild, Indians help a lot more Martyrdom o 5K runs for causes-causing yourself the pain doesnt actually help others, but people get satisfaction out of that martyrdom o Forcing people to suffer in order to give to others gets them to give more to others!?!? Identifiable Victim o Baby Jessica fell down a well and people felt so bad they all donated; by the time she was 18, millionaire from trust fund o But kid in Africa are starving, for $1.50, could help them

o Knowing where your aid is going makes difference in how much you give Social facilitation How do we perform under observation? Yerkes-Dodson Curve-morning rust-out to optimum to burnout o Others watching you changes how well you work-if you are at beginning level, do worse with people watching; at high leveldo better with people with people watching Easy tasks get easier, hard get harder with people watching Social facilitation o Statue facilitation-easy task, live observer and picture of observer made you do better but no/eyes closed didnt

The Personality Situation Debate

11/8/2010 8:59:00 AM

The Debate Personality States Its Case o Study of individual differences-some people are different from other people o Fundamental differences in the character of people o These let us predict their behaviors o But are there real personality differences? The Big Five (Personality Differences) How they found them-got together a bunch of adjs and then had them rate them; did a factor analysis and found that they break down into five different groups Mnemonic: CANOE (aka OCEAN) Conscientiousness-organization and carefulness Agreeableness-trust, helpfulness, etc Neuroticism-emotionally; how much do feel in various situations (can be angry/sad) Openness-willingness to try new things Extraversion-enjoyment of social situations (not

necessarily being good at itwhether you seek out social action; can be introverted but life of party or extraverted and bad at social action) Big five can vary, but one is not better than other-nonvalanced i.e. Agreeableness-one end: ruthless other end: pushover; benefits/drawbacks of each Personality-individual differences that are consistent across time

Can measure how people do on big five; people are generally consistent on these traits; as you get older, personality becomes even more consistent-suggesting personality is a real thing o Other Personality Constructs Need for cognition-seeking out learning/intellectual things

Need for closure-i.e. some know major years early, while others are fine with uncertainty Approach/avoidance-some like to seek out challenges while others like to avoid drawback; i.e. defensive (minimize losses) vs offensive (seeking out winning) o Emotional Intelligence On Marshmallows and SAT scores-shows that personality is stable; we can predict something 18 years later based on personality differences early in life Situationism States Its Case o Milgram Study-even nice people hurt others; just being told to shock people to death, people will do it; not about individual difference between people but what situation they are in o Stanford Prison Study-Power of situations; shows very similar to thing to Milgram; people were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner position o Factors involved in helping Princeton Seminary Study-people who WANT to help others; but depended on situation, if they had timehelped others, if not, they didnt Similarly, corporate lawyer can be shark-like in court, nurturing at home. o Honesty Studies 1. Likelihood of cheating on an exam 2. Likelihood of correcting too much change 3. Likelihood of lying about embarrassment 4. Likelihood of telling a white lie Intercorrelation of only 0.2!! Only 4% of the variance can be predicted o Summer Camp Studies I: People asked to judge personality after weeklong camp Personal judgments of personality depend more on who is doing the rating than who is being rated! If people are high on neuroticism, suggests everyone would say they are; but not true!!

o If personality is so malleable, why do people have such strong intuitions about it? o Fundamental Attribution Error Dispositional attributions about others Situational attribution about self From own perspective, know the situational pressures, but other people dont have that insight so we attribute judgments about others to person leading us to believe wrongly that there is personality o Marshmallow Study This study deals with a trait of ability/skill! Not personality!!! Its a skill that would be useful throughout life. Personality Rebuttal o Honesty Studies e.g. Likelihood of cheating on an exam Reason you got low correlation was because of looking at two items together; any two items together has a lot of noise If we take sample of many items/(situations?) together: Split Half Correlation of 0.71 o Summer Camp Studies I: Personal judgments of personality depend more on who is doing rating than who is being rated Unless the people doing the rating all know the person being rated quite well! People in summer camp dont know each other that well. BUT take e.g. Fraternity Study, the personalities are rated very similarly o Not Everybody is strong on every trait: People are more consistent on traits that they consider important to their self concept People are more consistent on dispositions/traits important to life goals People at extremes are more consistent than those in the middle of a scale!

Reason that we cant rate every person on every personality dimension is that some people who are just middle of the road. o Milgram Study-Yes people do horrible things; BUT only 2/3 went all the way; what led the other 1/3 not to o Stanford Prisoner Study-there were three types of guards; tough but fair, good guys, and hostile, arbitrary/inventive in forms of prisoner humiliation These are personality differences o The Seminary Study: All conditions were preachers (high altruistic personality) They all want to be helpful! What you need to do is to compare the actions of priests to those of thugs; the original study tells you nothing because there is no comparison! Situationism Rebuttal o Judgments of personality depend more on who is doing the rating than who is being rated unless raters know person being rated quite well BUT fraternities establish social roles, and is only one situational context-in the fraternity. Personality requires stability over multiple social roles or multiple social contexts o Dorm Volunteerism Study Resident Associates Ratings of helpfulness Asked to rate their dorm kids in terms of helpfulness Not predictive of behavior! Because volunteering is different context than dorm life o Milgram study-what led others not to? Well, personality is not about consistency, not non-conformity; maybe the 1/3 that didnt was just due to chance Summary o Perhaps there is an interaction between person and situation o Summer Camp Study II-group of summer camp boys sent to a camp for acting out in class (bullies, etc)

See graph in ppt!! Noticed pattern; four situations-ignored, provoke, friendly, superior Boy 1 acts out when ignored etc Boy 2 responds in force when provoked If told what boy, situation matters to affect behavior; if told what situation, boys personality matters There is an interaction between the two!!!! o Person Situation Interaction See graph! Situation that calls for extraversion leads people to being more extraverted and vice versa; but extraverts are more extraverted in both situations Interaction exists here too! o Conclusion Personalities may be have less of a role in determining behavior than intuition suggests personalities and situations interact to determine behaviorneither is sufficient on its own Situation more useful for particular behavior, personality more useful for average behavior

Cognitive Dissonance

11/8/2010 8:59:00 AM

Cognitive Dissonance Theory Introduced by Leon Festinger in 1957 People abhor inconsistency among and between their cognitions o Cognitions are knowledge we have about enviro & ourselves inc knowledge about our attitudes, behaviors and feelings Inconsistency produces an aversive drive state known as dissonance Like other aversive drives (e.g. hunger), dissonance needs to be reduced Examples of inconsistent cognitions o I am standing in the rain but Im not getting wet o I think the Tea Party is dangerous but I contributed to Rand Pauls campaign o I worked hard to get into my psych class but its not very good o I made a speech in class that global warming is junk science but I actually think it is very serious Reducing the Dissonance Drives o Change a cognition I really do think the Tea Party is good for America o Add a cognition I still believe the Tea Party is dangerous but I want to see Tina Fey play Sarah Palin on SNL o Change the importance of the cognition I only sent a small donation to Pauls campaign. The campaign was cute Estimating the magnitude of dissonance o Mag dissonance = sum(discrepancy cognition*importance)/ o What o o o o sum(consistent cognition*importance) Good reasons lesson dissonance, discrepancies increase are some of the interesting ways people reduce dissonance? People come to believe what they say People come to like what they choose and dislike what they reject People seek social support for discrepant behaviors People come to like what they suffer for

The psychology of induced compliance: Believing what we say o Image having an attitude about political issue e.g. against global warming o You are asked to make a speech in front of the class that global warming is just junk science o After the speech, you are asked about your opinion o Has it changed because of the speech? o Probably yes, considering a classic study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Students were asked to perform a very boring task Then asked to tell another student task was exciting see ppt When asked how interesting the experiement was, the participants who sait it was great found it to be more interesting an fun than students who did not make the attitude-discrepant statement The change in attitude reduced the discrepancy and reduced the drive state BUT, there was one more interesting variable in

Festinger and Carlsmiths study: Effect of money Offered to pay either $20 or $1 (manipulating incentive) Who has the greater magnitude of dissonance? $1 The fee for making counterattitudinal see ppt see ppt o Conclusion for induced compliance People will change their attitude to match their behavior, provided they did not have a compelling reason for behaving as they did: Justification (e.g. $) for the behavior is low The behavior was freely engaged in! The effect of free choice: Lets Choose a Car o The Porsche Good: fast, sexy, looks, dates Bad: expensive, small, repairs o The Chevy Malibu Good: $, groceries, repairs

 Bad: slow, ugly, no dates Problem: Every unwanted feature of the Porsche is discrepant from the choice to buy the Porsche AND every desired feature of the Chevy is discrepant from the choice of buying the Porsche o Creates dissonance o What do I do? Resolving dissonance Change the idea that a Porsche is small to a good thing, and say that being able to get groceries with the Malibu to a bad (no I dont have to!) Also recruit other good aspects for the Porsche and bad for the Malibu/change the perceived importance of the traits o SO, before the decision, attractiveness of chosen and unchosen alternative before/after decision is relatively constant but after decision, Porsche becomes even attractive and Malibu less o It follows that the more difficult the decision, the more dissonance there will be following choice o We will like our choice much better after a hard decision than after an easy one Study by Jack Brehm (1956) o Minneapolis housewives recruited for study at University of Minnesota o Rated consumer items o Were offered a choice between 2 highly attractive items 1 attractive and one unattractive Control: no choice, just got item o Changes in attractiveness ratings in Brehms study In high dissonance choice, chosen alternative goes up really high, not becomes much less attractive; in low, very little change; in control: no change Dissonance a partial summary o Dissonance is an uncomfortable drive state aroused by inconsistency among cognitions

o Research in induced compliance shows people come to change attitudes to match behavior if Behavior was engaged in freely There was only minimal incentive for behavior Dissonance 2: Free Choice o More difficult choice=more dissonance o Resolved by Raising attractiveness of chosen Lowering attractiveness of rejected Dissonance 3: Disconfirmed Prophecies o Festinger, Riecken & Schacter read in the newspaper Clarion call to planet: Flee that Flood The Seekers, a group of believers led by Mrs. Marion Keech, believes the world will end in a cataclysmic flood at midnight no Dec 21 Festinger, Reicken & Schacter thought about the dissonance that would likely occur on Dec 22 They infiltrated the croup and reported their finding in when Prophecy Fails in 1956 o Prediction for When Prophecy Fails The group would add constant cognitions by Inventing a cognition consonant with their belief system that explained the failed prophecy Seek social support for their prophecy, their consonant cognition, and their belief system o The night of Dec 21 Midnight arrives no spaceship 12:10 the Seekers re-set their watches 12:30 the discovery of metal in one members mouth 3:00 the group sits in stunned silence 3:30 tears and sobs 4:45 Mrs. Keech receives a new message by automatic writing This little group sitting all night long, has shed so much goodness and light that God had saved the world from destruction

6:00 the group has already prepared leaflets and flyers to distribute to tell others of the good news o Added new cognition and sought social support to increase its importance

Stereotypes and Prejudice

11/8/2010 8:59:00 AM

A Long History Civil rights Different cultures Change? Obama is prejudice but still havent reached true equality Explaining Stereotypes Stereotypes-cognitive schemas about the members of a group Prejudice-attitudes towards a person based on his/her membership in a specific group (whether or not you like something) Benefits of Stereotypes o Principles of Cognitive Economy Reduced discriminations-minimize the number of labels in the world Informativeness-maximize the number of inferences that can be made o So can be useful. Let us understand/predict expectations of others which makes interactions easier o Stereotypes free up cognitive resources Increase in performance (i.e. remembering things about person) if we have stereotypes Origins of Stereotypes o Realistic conflict theory-prejudice stems from competition between groups for scarce resources More prejudices during bad years (i.e. lynchings) o Classical conditioning-learned associations (i.e. relating socioeconomic status with racial groups) o Social learning theory-stereotypes taught from family/peers (i.e. watching others interactions of others) o Confirmation bias-seeking stereotype confirming information (because of this, hard to get rid of them) o Out-group homogeneity effects-other groups all look the same In-Group v Out-group o Attributions more favorable to the in-group o Biased allocation of resources o Less favorable view of out-group members (esp if competition between the two groups)

o Out group homogeneity o Minimal group paradigm-have people flip coins randomly; separate groups based on what they tossed, H or T; merely identifying with a group leads to these out-group effects Consequences of Stereotypes Cognitive Consequences o Neural Network of a Prejudiced Individual Black primes gun/poor/music; white primes rich/smart o Perception-is that person holding a cell phone or gun? If you have prejudice, see black person-might think more likely gun o Attention-if people in room, more likely to pay attention to minority doing bad thing vs majority doing good o Memory-person doing crime more likely to be false alarmed as minority; easier to remember about people who you have stereotypes of o Language-same sentence can be interpreted on hostile depending on who says it o Higher Order Cognition-top down influences change inferences w/o our knowledge/conscious effort o The Donald Studies Priming stereotypes which resolve ambiguous descriptions People are primed w/ different things (picture of black or white face.) If primed w/ black, think Donald is more reckless, aggressive If white, Donald is more assertive, having fun People dont even realize they were primed! o Automaticity-exposure to a group can automatically activate associated knowledge i.e. People primed w/ elderly by doing a word search w/ words like forgetful, arthritis, Florida; people who are primed w/ concepts of elderly walk slower than those primed w/ younger, they do worse on recall tasks Affective Consequences

o People have negative emotional responses to members of out-groups (usually, i.e. younger people get pos bias) o Affective response predicts discriminatory behavior more than cognitive bias o Discrimination o Self-Fullfilling Prophecies Teachers were told that randomly selected students were spurters (halfway through semesters, they will spurt and do better); but no such thing! Those students ended up doing better than nonspurters! Teachers believed these students were spurters so they taught them differently/better Study of attractiveness: Men and women talking on the phone and get to know them; men get picture of either hot or not woman (not really pictures of these women); later, naive people listen to only womans part of convo and their thought of whether she is hot or not ends up being same as what man in convo thought Stereotype Threat Explaining the Test Score Gap: People being judged by stereotypes are under threat, which takes up cognitive resources Study: actual SAT questions given to minorities and non-minorities; in diagnostic test-there is test gap; when people are told that there is no bias in this test and it is non-diagnostic-test gap goes away even though it is same test! Other studies: white men cant jump, black golfers Diminishing Stereotypes Contact Hypothesis o Exposure to other races reduces prejudice sometimes Super-Ordinate Goals o Sherifs Robbers Cave Experiments-on first day of camp, separated people into different groups by Minimal group paradigm; they compete for scarce resources; whoever wins

tug-of-war, gets cake; at the end, they hate each other; then he tries to reverse stereotypes; contact hypothesis doesnt work, what does work is making the groups work together to reach common goal (truck of food broke down, both groups needed to help) Cognitive Interventions o Attribute driven processing-encouraging people to pay attention to unique characteristics o Individuating information-the more you know about a person, the less stereotypes apply o Recategorization-defining former outgroup members as ingroup members (in a superordinate ingroup) o Cognitive resources required working memory, focused attention which are both limited! Creates other adverse consequences which makes getting rid of stereotypes hard o Study in army on promotion levels: disparate rate between white and non-white officers; added a line in which promotion recommendations needed a justification of why, made people think about individual differences and got rid of the gap