Defined-features model: an entity is included in a category if it has certain key features.
Prototype-matching model: entities are classified according to how well they match the "typical" member of the category.
allows for "fuzzy boundaries."
Social categorization sets the stage for stereotyped thinking.
stereotypes as probability judgments: stereotypes estimate the likelihood that individuals in certain groups possess certain characteristics.
Factors that activate stereotypes:
Physical appearance that closely matches the culture's prototype for that group.
Behavior that matches a prototype.
Target person's social category salience.
Self-esteem threat to the observer.
The functions of stereotyped thinking:
Gives a basis of immediate action in uncertain circumstances.
Provides for efficient use of cognitive resources.
Inhibits careful thought.
Much of our gender knowledge is based on stereotypes.
Psychological masculinity encompasses instrumental traits related to task completion and goal achievement.
Psychological femininity encompasses expressive personality traits dealing with caretaking and nurturance.
The traits in stereotypes of men and women are consistent around the world.
Men tend to be judged according to the stereotype of their nationality, while women are judged by their sex.
Stereotypes are often based on illusory correlations.
Illusory correlation is the belief that two variables are related when in fact they are not.
May be based on shared distinctiveness: both minority groups and negative events stand out in memory because they are relatively rare.
Illusory correlations are not formed as easily when the perceiver is emotionally aroused.
Stereotyped thinking is more characteristic of the powerful.
More demands on the attention of the powerful leads to stereotyping to conserve cognitive resources.
Less risk of negative consequences to the powerful if they make a bad decision based on stereotypes.
Powerful people can be induced to think in nonstereotypic ways by appealing to their desire for accuracy, their concern for public accountability, their humanitarian values, or their self-concept as fair-minded people.
II. Mental Shortcuts and Simulations
Heuristics are timesaving "rules of thumb" that simplify thinking.
The representativeness heuristic: the tendency to judge the category membership of people based on how closely they match the prototype of the category.
"Stereotyping operating in reverse."
Ignores the base rate, the frequency at which some event or pattern occurs in the general population.
The anchoring and adjustment heuristic: the tendency to make biased judgments toward the starting value or anchor in making quantitative judgments.
The availability heuristic: The tendency to judge the frequency or probability of an event in terms of how easy it is to think of examples of that event.
When do we use heuristics?
When we don't have time to engage in careful analysis.
When we are overloaded with information.
When the question is not very important.
When we have little other knowledge about the issue.
When something about the situation calls a heuristic to mind.
Mentally simulating events can alter our social thinking.
Heuristics focus on remembering past events; mental simulations refer to imagining scenarios that may or may not be real.
Mental simulations in the courtroom.
The story model of juror decision-making says that the story that a juror creates that organizes the most evidence in the most cohesive way will be the most persuasive.
The "story order" of witness presentation is most effective.
The hindsight bias: the tendency, once events have occurred, to overestimate our ability to have foreseen the outcome.
Counterfactual thinking: the tendency to evaluate events by imagining alternative versions or outcomes.
Helps us feel better following negative outcomes.
May better prepare us for similar situations in the future.
After traumatic life events, may inhibit our ability to recover and cause victims to blame themselves.
III. Social World Beliefs
We exaggerate the extent to which others think and act as we do.
The false consensus effect: the tendency to believe that our own traits, actions, and choices are more common than they really are.
We seek information that supports our beliefs.
Confirmation bias: the tendency to seek only information that verifies your beliefs.
May be a way of conserving cognitive resources.
May serve to smooth an interaction between new acquaintances through asking of "matching" questions.
This strategy used more by high self-monitors.
Our expectations can become self-fulfilling prophecies.
A situation in which someone's expectations about a person or group actually leads to the fulfillment of those expectations. May be positive or negative.
A three-step process:
The perceiver forms an impression of the target.
The perceiver acts in a manner consistent with this impression toward the target.
The target's behavior changes to correspond to the perceiver's actions.
The Rosenthal and Jacobson study demonstrated self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom.
In the classroom, teachers may create self-fulfilling prophecies by
creating a different socioemotional climate,
providing differential levels of feedback,
providing differential levels of challenge, and/or
providing differential levels of opportunity to respond to material presented in class.
Belief in a just world both comforts us and influences how we explain others' misfortunes.
The just world belief emphasizes that the world is a fair and equitable place, where people get what they deserve.
Generally related to good psychological adjustment.
Belief that we have control over our lives is beneficial in moderation.
Believers are more likely to develop an accommodating interpersonal style.
Believers tend to make defensive attributions about the victims ("blaming the victim").
Repeated failure often leads to learned helplessness.
At first, people feel angry and anxious about uncontrollable negative events.
Over time, these feelings are replaced with depression.
Depression will result from attributions about a negative, uncontrollable event that are
Stable,
Global, and
Internal.
(This is the "pessimistic explanatory style"; see Applications section).
IV. Applications: How Do You Explain Negative Events in Your Life?
People who make stable and global attributions for uncontrollable events are more likely to feel helpless in future events.
Consistent use of internal, stable, global attributions for negative events is called the pessimistic explanatory style, and is linked to depression.
