Chapter 3

1. Chapter 3 Social Cognition: How We Think About the Social World © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

2. Social Cognition Definition Social cognition refers to how people think about themselves and the social world. It relates to how people select, interpret, remember, and use social information to make judgments and decisions. Schemas influence this process. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

3. Chapter Outline I. People as Everyday Theorists: Schemas and Their Influence © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

4. Schemas and Their Influence Schemas are Mental Structures Schemas are mental structures people use to organize their knowledge about the social world around themes or subjects. Schemas affect what information we notice, think about, and remember. Schemas can sometimesmisrepresent the world (see Carli, 1999; Figure 3.1). The question arises, then why do we have them? Because they fulfill certain functions. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

5. Schemas and Their Influence Schemas provide i) continuity. It is important to have continuity in our life, to relate new experiences to our past schemas. Otherwise, we must approach every situation as if we were encountering it for the first time (see Korsakov patient example). Schemas serve to reducethe ii) amount of information we have to process, which saves time and effort (see chair example). Schemas provide us with a way of reducing iii) ambiguity when we encounter ambiguous information (see Kelly, 1950, warm-cold study). Schemas Serve a Number of Functions © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

6. Schemas and Their Influence Which Schemas are Applied: Accessibility Schemas are affected by accessibility. Accessibility refers to the extent to which schemas and concepts are at the forefront of people’s minds and are therefore likely to be used when making judgments about the social world. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

7. Schemas and Their Influence Which Schemas are Applied: Two Kinds of Accessibility • There are two kinds of accessibility: • Chronic accessibility due to past experience over time, eg, alcoholic parent; • ii) Temporary accessibility of traits due to present thoughts, eg, reading about mental patients, or immediate experience, eg, encountering a drunk in the park. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

8. Schemas and Their Influence Which Schemas are Applied: Priming increases Accessibility Priming increases accessibility of schemas, or traits (see Figure 3.2) . Priming is the process by which recent experiences increase a schema’s, or trait’s accessibility. Research supports the view that priming influences the formation of impressions of people’s behaviour (see Higgins et al, 1977 Donald study; Figure 3.3) © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

9. Schemas and Their Influence Which Schemas are Applied: Primes have to be Relevant Not all thoughts and recent experiences act as primes increasing schema accessibility and influencing the formation of impressions of others’ behaviour. Such thoughts and/or experiences have to be relevant to the person’s actions (see the Donald study, Higgins et al, 1977) © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

10. Schemas and Their Influence Schemas Can Persist Even After They Are Discredited: The Perseverance Effect Schemas can persist even after the evidence for them has been completely debunked. This referred to as the perseverance effect. Perseverance effect: the tendency for people’s beliefs about themselves and their world to persist even when those beliefs are discredited (see the Ross, Leeper & Hubbard, 1975 card study; Fig. 3.4). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

11. Schemas and Their Influence Making Our Schemas Come True: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy People can inadvertently make their schemas come true by the way they treat others. This is called the self-fulfilling prophecy. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

12. Schemas and Their Influence Self-fulfilling prophecy is the case whereby people have an expectation about what another person is like (eg, teachers were told that one group of kids were bright, they should excel (see the Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968 study), which, influences how they act toward that person (eg, teachers spend more time with, praise more, give more difficult assignments to, more detailed feedback to the group of bright students. Note, this is true of subsequent studies, but not of Rosenthal’s), Making Our Schemas Come True: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

13. Schemas and Their Influence Making Our Schemas Come True: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy which causes that person to behave in a way consistent with the original expectations (eg, students in the bright group did significantly better than controls in IQ tests at the end of the year) __making the expectations come true (Fig. 3.5 illustrates this self-perpetuating cycle; see Fig 3.6 for the results of the Rosenthal & Jacobson study) © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

14. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. © 2001 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

15. Schemas and Their Influence Making Our Schemas Come True: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Self-fulfilling prophecies are not limited to the way teachers treat students. Each of us has all sorts of schemas about what other people are like, and whenever we act on these schemas in a way that makes the schema come true, a self-fulfilling prophecy results. -e.g., university students have schemas about what potential dating partners are like. -e.g., mothers have schemas about what premature babies are like, etc. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

16. Schemas and Their Influence Making Our Schemas Come True: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy A distressing implication of research on the self-fulfilling prophecy is that our schemas may be resistant to change because we see a good deal of false evidence that confirms them (e.g., boys’ superiority in math even though a number of girls do just as well). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

17. Schemas and Their Influence Schemas are Influenced by our Culture • There are fundamental differences in people’s schemas about themselves and the social world across cultures • Different cultures have schemas about different things depending on what is important to that culture (see the Bantu herdsman cattle example). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

18. Chapter Outline II. Mental Strategies and Shortcuts: Heuristics © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

19. Heuristics Judgmental Heuristics When we have important decisions to make, e.g., which car to buy, which job to take, etc., we usually do not conduct a thorough search of all the options. Rather we use mental strategies and shortcuts called judgmental heuristics. Judgmental heuristics are mental shortcuts people use to make judgments quickly and efficiently. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

20. Heuristics Availability Heuristic We often rely on ready-made judgmental schemas to provide answers to questions that arise. I.e., we rely on how easily different examples of schemas come to mind. This is called the availability heuristic. The availability heuristic is a mental rule of thumb whereby people base a judgment on the ease with which they can bring something to mind. (See famous names study; physician’s diagnosis study; and assertiveness study, Fig. 3.7) © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

21. Heuristics Use of Availability Heuristic Although not always accurate, the availability heuristic is generally a good strategy to use. Do people use the availability heuristic to make judgments about themselves? Yes, people use the availability heuristic when making judgments about themselves and other people (see Schwartz et al, 1991: Fig. 3.7). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

22. Heuristics The Representativeness Heuristic People use another mental shortcut when trying to categorize something: they judge how similar it is to their idea of the typical case (eg, Lyne at U of A). This is called the representativeness heuristic. The representativeness heuristic is a mental shortcut whereby people classify something according to how similar it is to their conception of a typical case (e.g., a lawyer, politician, doctor, accountant, construction worker, farmer, etc.). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

23. Heuristics Base Rate Information People don’t always use the representativeness heuristic. They might use another source of information: base rate information. Base rate informationisinformation about the relative frequency of members of different categories in the population (e.g., percentage of students at U of S who are from Saskatchewan is higher than those from outside the province). (See the Kahneman & Tversky, 1973 engineer-lawyer study). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

24. Heuristics Base Rate & Conflicting Information What happens when people have both base rate information and conflicting information about the person in question? They tend to base their judgments on individual information (ie, whether the traits used to describe the person fit their conception of lawyers, or engineers, etc), ignoring base rate information (see Kahneman & Tversky 1973 study). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

25. Heuristics The Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic People also rely on the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, wherein an initial piece of information acts as an anchor, or starting point, for subsequent thoughts on the topic. The anchoring and adjustment heuristic is a mental shortcut that involves using a number (e.g., 2500) or value (e.g., burned food at a fancy restaurant) as a starting point, and then adjusting one’s answer away from this anchor (see Wilson et al, 1996 handwriting study). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

26. Heuristics The Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic & Errors in Judgment Use of the anchoring heuristic is a good strategy under many circumstances, but sometimes leads to major errors in judgment (see Wilson et al, 1996 study). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

27. Heuristics The Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic & Errors in Judgment The anchoring and adjustment heuristic operates even when we know our experiences are unusual or atypical (see Gilvich et al, 2000 restaurantstudy ). This is called biased sampling—making generalizations from a sample of information we know to be biased (e.g., one burned meal in a restaurant; see Gilvich et al, 2000 study). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

28. Heuristics The Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: Errors in Judgment Even when we know that a piece of information is biased or atypical, it can be hard to ignore it completely (see Hamill et al, 1980 study of welfare recipients Fig. 3.8). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

29. Heuristics Methodological Questions There is some question about the research that has demonstrated error or biases in people’s thinking. Some researchers have argued that what is biased is not so much people’s thinking, but rather the methods that are used to study how people think. -ie, participants are responding quite normally given the situation and rules of conversation. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

30. Heuristics Rules of Conversation as an explanatory mechanism They suggest two rules of conversation: 1) Speakers don’t convey information unless it is informative and relevant; 2) If two conflicting pieces of information are presented, the speaker general intends the last piece of information to be most important. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

31. Heuristics Rule #1: -eg, when participants were given information about Jack’s qualities in the Kahneman & Tversky, 1973 study, they accepted this as valid, relevant and informative when making their judgments about whether Jack was a lawyer or engineer__ ignored base rate information. And this is quite a normal reaction because participants are just following one of the rules of conversation, according to the critics. Rules of Conversation as an explanatory mechanism © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

32. Heuristics Rule #2: Critics note that in studies on the use of base rates, base rate information is typically presented first, with the individual information following. Since the information presented last, or most recent is considered more important then participants tend to rely on individual information in forming their judgments__a normal reaction for participants following conversational conventions. Rules of Conversation as an explanatory mechanism © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

33. Heuristics Rules of Conversation as an explanatory mechanism Rule #2: Supporting this explanation, subsequent studies have shown that if individual information is presented first and base rate information last, then base rate information was more influential in determining judgments than was individual information ( Krosnick et al, 1990) © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

34. Chapter Outline III. Automatic Versus Controlled Thinking © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

35. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Automatic processing refers to thinking that is nonconscious, unintentional, involuntary, and effortless (eg, thinking can become automatic with practice, just like riding a bicycle). This adds efficiency to our processing of information, but at a cost __incorrect categorization, somtimes. If we incorrectly categorize people, or objects, then our subsequent behaviour can be inappropriate (eg. Senior male professor thinking that a junior female professor is a secretary, gives her typing to complete). Automatic Processing © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

36. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Controlled Processing Not all thinking is automatic. Sometimes we pause and think deeply about ourselves and the social world. This is called controlled processing. Controlled processing is defined as thinking that is conscious, intentional, voluntary and effortful. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

37. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Controlled Processing Controlled thinking requires motivation and effort. It is reserved for situations in which the stakes are high and accuracy in judgment is paramount. When the stakes are low and accuracy is not essential then automatic thinking takes over. One purpose of controlled thinking is to provide checks on automatic processing. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

38. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Automatic and Controlled Thinking According to Gilbert (1991,1998) people are programmed to automatically believe everything they hear and see. Then they step back and assess the acceptability of the decision (controlled processing), and accept, or reject the initial decision (Fig. 3.9). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

39. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Automatic and Controlled Thinking In general, studies show that when stakes are high (eg, decisions are important to us), we tend to: i) use more sophisticated strategies ; ii) be more accurate in their judgments; iii) be more likely to notice facts that conflict with their schemas (Dark et al, 1998). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

40. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Controlled Thinking & Thought Suppression When people are unmotivated or preoccupied controlled processing is difficult. In such cases people are more likely to accept false information and to have difficulty engaging in thought suppression. Thought suppression is the attempt to avoid thinking about something we would just as soon forget. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

41. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Thought Suppression: Two Processes According to Wegner, thought suppression depends on the interaction of two processes: i) monitoring—searching for evidence that the unwanted thought is about to intrude upon consciousness (automatic), and ii) operating—the effortful, conscious attempt to distract oneself by finding something else to think about (controlled). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

42. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Thought Suppression & Social Stigmas Studies show that people with nonobvious stigmas (eg, eating disorder) are especially likely to experience the cycle of thought intrusion and subsequent attempts to suppress them (see eating study by Smart & Wegner, 1999). In this study, women who were trying to conceal their eating disorder experienced the most thought intrusions about eating habits and body image, and were most likely to engage in thought suppression. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

43. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Thought Suppression & Hyperaccessibility What happens when the controlling process is weakened because the person is tired, or preoccupied? The monitoring process continues to find instances of unwanted thought, which then intrude upon consciousness unchecked by the conscious control system. Thus, a state of hyperaccessibility exists, whereby the unwanted thought occurs with high frequency (see study by Wegner et al, 1995). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

44. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Attempts at Thought Suppression Attempts at thought suppression can have the opposite effect, ie, can lead to more thought intrusions, not less (see pain study by Sullivan et al, 1997). The authors of this study felt that the effort required to suppress participants’ thoughts may have prevented them from engaging in active coping strategies. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

45. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Counterfactual Reasoning Another intriguing aspect of human cognition is our ability to reflect on how events might have turned out differently. This is engaging in counterfactual thinking. Counterfactual thinking is mentally changing some aspect of the past as a way of imagining what might have been. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

46. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Counterfactual Reasoning We are most likely to engage in counterfactual thinking when negative events occur, especially if those events are unusual. (See the hitchhiker example). Participants experience greater regret following unusual events (e.g., Mr. Caution), and receive greater compensation for an injury (greater sympathy) following an unusual event (see Miller & McFarland 1986 study, Simon Fraser University). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

47. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Counterfactual Reasoning We are also most likely to engage in counterfactual thinking when we were nearly able to avoid a negative event. -eg missing a plane by five minutes causes more counterfactual thinking (‘if only I had driven faster’) than missing a plane by one hour. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

48. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Counterfactual Reasoning People who have been exposed to tragedy (eg spinal cord injury, loss of a child) and who engage in more counterfactual thinking (‘If only I had done something different my spouse/child would still be alive’ ) suffer more distress than those who do not engage in as much counterfactual thinking (see Davis et al, 1995 study of trauma persons). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

49. Automatic versus Controlled Thinking Counterfactual Reasoning People who succeed (eg, winning a silver medal at the Olympics), but engage in more counterfactual thinking (eg, ‘I almost pulled it off; it’s too bad’), are more unhappy than those who succeed (winning a bronze medal) but do not engage in such ‘I almost won’ counterfactual thinking (see Medvec et al, 1995 Olympic athlete study) © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

50. Automatic versus Controlled ThinkingHeuristics Counterfactual Reasoning There are two kinds of counterfactual thinking: i) Upward: imagining outcomes that are better than reality, e.g., imagining winning a gold medal rather than the silver which was won. Upward comparison makes us work harder. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.