Social Cognition

Social cognition is defined as the process by which we interpret, analyze, remember and use
information about the social world. In the other words, social cognition is the way by which we
process social information. It refers to how we think about and interpret the social world and
understand and react to people and situations. There are two different kinds of social
cognition: Automatic and Controlled Processes or Thinking.

1. Automatic thinking is thought that is nonconscious, unintentional, involuntary, and

effortless ( relies on knowledge structures). It usually takes place through the Amygdala
in the brain. Example, we form impressions of people quickly and effortlessly, without
much conscious analysis of what we are doing.

2. Controlled Thinking is defined as thinking that is conscious, intentional, voluntary, and

effortful (it requires mental energy) and takes place in the Prefrontal Cortex of the Brain.
People pause and think carefully about the right course of action. Example, one may have
spent hours deliberating over important decisions in our life, such as where to go to
college, etc.

At least five elements distinguish automatic from controlled processes: awareness, intention,
control, effort, and efficiency.

Limitations of Social Cognition: People can be aware that schematic processing is

inaccurate, and in the case of schemas of social groups undesirable, because it involves
stereotyping and prejudice. We often make Cognitive Errors that lead to phenomena such as
Self Fulfilling Prophecy, other errors in cognition such as confirmation bias, information
overload, gambler’s fallacy, etc.
Attribution theory

This process by which we try to infer causes behind the other persons’ behaviours is referred to
as attribution. Attribution processes play a crucial role in shaping self-perception. The way
individuals attribute the causes of their own successes and failures influences their self-esteem
and self-efficacy. Moreover, understanding how others attribute events to them contributes to
the development of the self-concept.

● Attributions are explanations people come up with to explain the behavior of others
● The development of attribution theory in the 1960s and 1970s was one of the most
important steps in the scientific study of thinking in social psychology. Attribution theory
focuses on how people interpret the causes of events, such as external pressures or
internal traits.
● Self-serving bias: the person claims credit for success but denies blame for failure.
● It may also help explain reactions to prejudice. Some disadvantaged minority groups
might protect their self-esteem by attributing their problems to other people’s prejudices
against them.

Principle Theories

Heider’s Naive Attribution Theory

Fritz Heider (1944, 1958) proposed that in regular social interactions people try to find out the
causes behind the behaviour of other people by using commonsense reasoning. Heider
proposed that while doing causal attribution, people are primarily focused on understanding
whether the behaviour is attributed to the person’s internal state, referred to as dispositional
attribution; or to the environmental factors, referred to as situational attribution. As a perceiver,
our decision to attribute behaviour to the personal dispositions or to the situational factors is
based on our evaluation of the strength of situational pressures on the actor.

Correspondent Inference Theory - Jones and Davis, 1965

1. Proposed by Edward E. Jones and Keith E. Davis.

2. It focuses on how people make attributions about the intentions of others based on their
observed behaviour in a given situation. (intentional behavior)
3. Choice: Individuals infer dispositional qualities when behaviour is perceived as a
voluntary choice.
4. Expectedness: Behavior consistent with social or situational norms is less likely to be
attributed to internal disposition.
5. Effects: Positive or negative outcomes resulting from behaviour contribute to
correspondent inferences about internal attributes.


Jones and Davis’ theory derived principally from Heider’s discounting principle, which states that
confidence in any cause is diminished to the extent that other causes are plausible. One
implication is that people will make fewer trait inferences about someone whose socially
appropriate behavior can be explained by their personality and by social norms than about
someone whose socially inappropriate behavior can be explained only by their personality. This
prediction was supported by a classic experiment (Jones, Davis, & Gergen, ) showing that
inferences about a job applicant’s traits were stronger when the candidate behaved in a manner
contrary to assumed job-seeking norms.

Covariation theory - Kelly,1967

Covariation Theory is a theory that explains how people attribute behavior to internal or external
causes based on the presence or absence of certain covariates. It suggests that people look at
three types of information: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency.
Kelley’s covariation theory derived principally from Heider’s covariation principle, which states
that people explain events in terms of things that are present when the event occurs but absent
when it does not.

The logic is nicely illustrated by the kind of stimuli that McArthur () used in her test of the theory.
Suppose that you learned that Englebert fell asleep in psychology class on Tuesday, but that he
also fell asleep in most of his other classes on that day, and that, in fact, he falls asleep in
psychology class and most other classes almost every day, though everyone else seems to stay
awake. Most likely you would conclude that Englebert is one sleepy guy.

Errors and Biases

1. People sometimes did not appear to be as logical and sensible as the theory said they
should be.
2. Biases and errors: subject responses that were less logical than the theories predicted.
3. Social cognitionists rejected the theories as simply descriptions of what people should do
rather than what they actually do.
4. Attribution theories were domain-specific micro theories that typically ignored the
information-processing stages of attention, perception, and memory, even though these
could alter the information on which people based their attributions.
5. Simply inferred attributional processes and principles from final attribution judgments,
rather than from more direct measures of the presumed processes.

Some more common examples:

1. Illusory Correlation- Media news highlighting certan points that can cause bias in
attribution (some certain points are emphasized more)
2. Base rate fallacy- Credi card system where you will get rewards/credit points/ benefits
based on how much money you spend using it
3. Gambler fallacy- When in MCQs you get all answers as A, you question whether you are
doing it correctly or not.
Schema

● Knowledge structures that represent substantial information about a concept, its

attributes, and its relationships to other concepts
● A schema for dancing, for example, would include movement, rhythm, repetition, and
coordination, as well as connections to music, shoes, romance, fashion, art, and perhaps
embarrassment.
● You develop schemas through your experiences, and they guide the way you process
information.
 ● Schemas help us to organize social information, guide our actions, and process
information relevant to particular contexts.
● Through past experience, we build up a mental framework containing the essential
features of various kinds of situations, such as visiting a hospital.
● With respect to attention, schemas often act as a kind of filter. Information consistent
with them is more likely to be noticed and to enter our consciousness.
● We especially tend to rely on schemas when experiencing cognitive load - when we are
trying to handle a lot of information at one time.
● During encoding, the information that becomes the focus of our attention is much more
likely to be stored in long-term memory. In general, the information that is consistent with
our schemas is encoded.
● Inconsistent information is sometimes so unexpected that it seizes our attention and
almost forces us to make a mental note of it.
● Overall, research suggests that people tend to report remembering information that is
consistent with schemas more than information that is inconsistent.
● Information inconsistent with schemas might be present in memory as strongly as
information consistent with schemas, but people simply report the information that is
consistent with their schema.

Priming: Which schema guides our thought?

● The stronger and better-developed schemas are, the more likely they will influence our
thinking, and especially our memory for social information.
● Schemas can be temporarily activated by what is known as priming - temporary
increases in the accessibility of specific schemas.
● A recent experience activates a schema, which in turn, exerts an effect on our current
thinking.
● Social psychologists describe unpriming as a process by which thoughts or actions
primed by a recent experience dissipate once they find expression.
Schema Persistance
● Schemas are often resistant to change. They show a strong perseverance effect,
remaining unchanged even in the face of contradictory information.
● Schemas can sometimes be self-fulfilling.

Scapegoat Theory
● Proposes that people blame their problems and misfortunes on outgroups, which
contributes to negative attitudes toward these outgroups. This process is linked to
attribution theory.
● When times are bad, people prefer to blame others (scapegoats) rather than their own
bad judgment or incompetence.
● Throughout Western history, the Jews have suffered repeatedly as a result of being
blamed for the problems of Christian societies. Jews were blamed for the death of Jesus,
even though it was the Romans who actually performed the execution.
● One is a quest for moral affirmation and superiority. The person’s responsibility for bad
outcomes is transferred onto the scapegoat, so guilt and other feelings of moral
inferiority are reduced. The other motivation is a desire for control. Many negative events
have complex causes that are hard to fathom and even harder to control. In contrast,
blaming a scapegoat is simple and straightforward, and it restores the person’s sense of
having control.
● If you can use the self-serving bias to dismiss your failures as irrelevant to your worth,
your self-esteem can be higher than if you blame yourself for your failures. Despite all its
costs and harm, prejudice does offer one advantage to the target—an external attribution
for failure. Targets of prejudice can blame their failures and problems on prejudice. As a
result, they can base their self-esteem mainly on their successes, and their self-esteem
will rise.
Impression Formation

IF is the process in which an individual develops a schema of some object, person, or

group. Early work on impression formation focused on several issues: the effects of different
cues on impressions, the nature and organisation of impressions, the processes involved in
impression formation, and finally, the accuracy of different people’s impressions.

First Impression

Individuals make conscious efforts to create a good impression. People generally do so

because they think that the first impression which we form on others is particularly significant
and also it has a considerably stable impact.
This view originates from the research on primacy effect (Luchins, 1957) demonstrating that
when we form an impression of other people information received early is attached with greater
value than the information received later.

Asch Study In 1946, Asch conducted another experiment in which he used six traits to
describe a hypothetical person. For half the participants, the person was described as
intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn and envious (i.e. positive traits first, negative
traits last). The order of presentation was reversed for the other group of participants. Asch
found that traits presented first had influenced the final impression more in the first half.
Accordingly, the hypothetical person was evaluated more favourably when positive information
was presented first than when negative information was presented first. So, early information
acts much like central cues, or that people simply pay more attention to earlier information. So,
mostly, the information presented first has a stronger effect than the information presented at
the end. This is called the primacy effect (first impressions are the lasting impressions).

On the other hand, if the perceiver may be asked to pay attention to all the information, and not
merely to the first information, whatever information comes at the end may have a stronger
influence. Hence, a “Recency effect” emerges which is defined as an order of presentation
effect in which later presented information has a disproportionate influence on social
cognition. It means that later information has more impact than earlier information. It can be
seen in situations where we are distracted and overworked and due to that we tend to give more
importance to the stimuli we received in the last.

Trait Centrality

Asch (1946) presented empirical evidence to the view that when we form impression of a
person some traits play more important role than others. Asch (1946) presented a list of traits of
an imaginary person to one of his two research groups. The list included seven traits: intelligent,
skilful, industrious, warm, determined, practical and cautious. The list which was presented to
the second research group differed in the manner that the trait “cold” replaced the trait “warm”.
The findings revealed that when the traits “warm” and “cold” shaped the overall impression
formed by the research participants to a great extent. In the “warm” trait condition, the imaginary
person was evaluated as happy, successful, popular and humorous. While in “cold” trait
condition, he was perceived as self-centred, unsociable and unhappy. The trait which has
greater influence on overall impression is considered to have higher trait centrality value.

Organization of Impressions

One dilemma raised by these models was the frequently observed lack of relationship between
people’s impressions of a stimulus person and their memories of that person’s behaviors
(Impression-Memory Consistency) Hastie and Park (1986), who proposed that behavioral
memories and trait impressions will be positively related when the impressions are formed after
relevant behaviors are observed, but that this will not necessarily be so when impressions are
formed as behaviors are observed. In the past few years, however, a growing body of research
evidence suggests that these conclusions should be modified: Many studies have reported that
even working with what are known as thin slices of information about others—for instance,
photos or short videos of them—perceivers’ first impressions are reasonably accurate.
In one study on this topic (Willis & Todorov, 2006), participants viewed faces of strangers for
very brief periods of time. Then, they rated these people on several traits. These ratings were
compared with ratings provided by another group of people who examined photos of the same
actors without any time constraints. If we really do form first impressions very quickly, then the
ratings of the two groups should be very similar (i.e., they should be highly correlated). This is
exactly what occurred; in fact, correlations between the two sets of ratings (the ones done
without any time limits and the ones completed at short exposure times) ranged from about .60
to about .75, indicating that we do indeed form impressions of others very quickly.

Associative network models have also been used in more complex models of impressions.
For example, Wyer and Carlston (1979) described an associative network model of impressions
in which traits, behaviors, and schemas are connected by associative linkages of varying
strengths, reflecting the way that concepts were thought to be represented in memory.
One of the more complex associative network models of impressions is Carlston’s associated
systems theory (1994), which proposes that impressions consist of inferred traits, observed
behaviors, categorizations, visual images, evaluations, affective and behavioral reactions, and
relationships, all organized coherently through their connections with basic brain structures.
Associative network models also provided useful ways of integrating social cognition with
concepts relating to affect, evaluations, and attitudes.

Schema vs Information processing model (not very imp)

Hastie and Kumar study might be viewed as an investigation into the organization of
impressions, pitting schema theory against the information-processing model. These
researchers wondered how an existing impression of a target would affect people’s memories
for new information that was either congruent or incongruent with that impression. Schema
theory predicts that material that fits an existing schema (the impression) will be
remembered better, because the schema provides a framework for remembering it. But
from an information-processing perspective, material that is surprising or unexpected might be
better attended and more carefully processed. Hastie and Kumar found that memory for
incongruent behaviors was superior to that for congruent behaviors, and that both were superior
to that for unrelated behaviors. Although this confirms the importance of information processing,
it does not necessarily challenge schema theory.
Factors that influence and contribute to impression formation

PRIMACY AND RECENCY EFFECT

Covered above

POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY

Generally, people tend to assume the best of others and form a positive impression (Sears,
1983). However, any negative information attracts our attention and affects our subsequent
impression as we get biassed towards negativity (Fiske, 1980). Further speaking, as it is well
known, a negative impression is much more difficult to change in the light if formed, even when
subsequent positive information is presented. Similarly, a positive impression is very easily
affected and changed if it gets exposed to any negative information (Hamilton & Zanna, 1974).
We are particularly drawn to negative information because that negative information is unusual
and distinctive. → can be related to schema and information processing model of information
processing in social cognition

PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS AND PERSONALITY IMPLICIT THEORIES

George Kelly (1955) gave the concept of “personal constructs”. They are Idiosyncratic and
personal ways of characterising other people which every individual develops of their
own. They can be considered as sets of bipolar dimensions. We have different personal
construct systems and would form different impressions of the same person. Personal
constructs develop over time as adaptive forms of person perception and so are resistant
to change. In addition to this, everyone also develops their own “implicit theories of personality”.
These can be defined as idiosyncratic and personal ways of characterising other people and
explaining their behaviour.
Everyone has their own set of theories. So, these theories in a way are general principles
concerning what sorts of characteristics go together to form certain types of personality. But, like
personal constructs, they are resistant to change and can be idiosyncratically based on
personal experiences (Smith & Zárate, 1992). Rosenberg and Sedlak (1972) found that
intelligent people can also be friendly and not necessarily self-centered. These theories can be
viewed as a specific kind of schema and suggest that when individuals possess some traits,
they are likely to possess others, too. Such expectations are strongly shaped by the cultures in
which we live.

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

Appearances are influential in retaining first impressions and going by the primacy effect, these
first impressions are also endured. However, in some cases, appearance-based impressions
can be surprisingly accurate (Zebrowitz & Collins, 1997). It is a general appearance-based
notion that if someone is physically attractive, then those people are “good” i.e. they are
interesting, warm, outgoing, socially skilled (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). The most
evident examples are that of Bollywood advertisements portraying the same.

COGNITIVE ALGEBRA

“Cognitive algebra” is an approach to the study of impression formation that focuses on how
people combine attributes that have valence into an overall positive or negative
impression. It means that we assign positive and negative valence to attributes and then
combine these pluses and minuses into a general evaluation. Impression formation involves the
integration of different pieces of information about a person that we perceive (i.e. traits) into a
complete image. For eg, when we are talking about our new professors or a new singer, or
perhaps even a potential dating partner, we use sentences like - “she was warm and friendly for
a teacher”, “ he sings sweet but can be better” or “he seems too rushed up and casual to date
right now”. There are three principal models of cognitive algebra: summation, averaging and
weighted averaging.

Process of Impression Formation

Theories of human judgment reflect two different viewpoints regarding how people combine the
implications of disparate items of information. The elementist view is that the separate
implications of separate items of information are mentally added or averaged to produce a
judgment. The holistic view is that different items of available information affect and change
each other, so that their combined implications determine judgments, but their separate
implications are not very important (Asch’s study).

Anderson’s research on his information integration model (1974)

Anderson believed that people simply averaged separate items of information, and he
conducted a vast program of research to demonstrate this for a variety of different kinds of
information, including that underlying impression judgments. Ultimately he described a complex
equation suggesting that people average separate items of information with the implications of
their original opinion, weighting each item differently depending on a number of factors

Impression Management
Impression management” is people’s use of various strategies to get other people to view them
in a positive light. It also involves our attempt to influence others’ perception about a person,
object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interactions. One theme of
human life is the long road to social acceptance. A big part of this road is making good
impressions on other people and keeping a good reputation.

Impression Management was first conceptualised in 1959 by Erving Goffman. Additionally,

the theory elaborates on the fact that people must ensure that their perceptions and
cognitions are consistent with goals and actions. People will always present themselves as
positively as possible to others. While individuals use many different techniques for boosting
their image, most of these falls into two major categories: Self-Enhancement (efforts to
increase their appeal to others) and Other-Enhancement (efforts to make the target person feel
good in various ways).

SELF ENHANCEMENT

We define self-enhancement as interests that individuals have in advancing one or more

self-domains or defending against negative self-views. It is an attempt to elicit respect and
confidence by persuading others that you are competent (Jones and Pittman, 1982). With
respect to self-enhancement, specific strategies include efforts to boost one’s appearance,
either physical or professional. Physical appearance relates to the attractiveness and
physical appeal of the individual, while professional appearance relates to personal grooming,
appropriate dress, and personal hygiene (Hosada, 2003). Additional tactics of
self-enhancement involve efforts to appear competent and accomplished through such steps as:
describing past achievements; telling positive qualities one possesses (like “I’m very friendly,”
“I’m organized and punctual”); taking responsibility for positive events in one’s life that occurred
in the past (“I have my dream job because I aimed for it”); or explaining how they overcame
daunting obstacles (Stevens & Kristoff, 1995). Several of these tactics are readily visible in
online dating services and in information people post about themselves on social networks,
where people attempt to “look good” to others (potential romantic partners, old friends and new
ones).

OTHER ENHANCEMENT

In these strategies, individuals basically seek to induce positive moods and reactions in
others through the use of a variety of tactics (Byrne, 1992). These include ingratiation,
intimidation, exemplification and supplication.

Ingratiation:
Perhaps the most commonly used tactic of this type is ingratiation, using flattery or praise to
make yourself likable to another, often a person of higher status. We can ingratiate
through compliments, by agreeing with another’s ideas, by commiserating and offering
sympathy, and so on. For example, Basking in reflected glory really does work. Make casual
references to your connections with winners, and only make links with losers when such links
cannot be turned against you. Also, agreeing with people’s opinions, but making it credible.
Being selectively modest by making fun of your standing on unimportant issues and by putting
yourself down in areas that do not matter very much. Complementing colleagues, taking an
interest in your circle’s personal and professional life to come across as friendly, praising
everyone for their accomplishments, and doing personal favours for the people works tricks for
making yourself appear more likeable.
Intimidation:
It means trying to get others to think you are dangerous (Shinto Sir lmao). It is an
impression management strategy designed to increase the credibility of one’s threats and in turn
enhance the probability that the target will comply with the actors’ demands for agreement
(Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). Using Intimidation people try to convince his target that he is
dangerous (Jones & Pittman, 1982) and generally flows from high level to low level and usually
a form of downward influence (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Being intimidating with coworkers will
help you get your job done, letting others know you can make things difficult for them if they
push you too far, dealing forcefully with colleagues when they hamper your ability to get your job
done and dealing strongly or aggressively with coworkers who interfere in your business are
some of the tactics for intimidation.

Exemplification:

It is trying to get others to regard you as a morally respectable individual. These individuals
are willing to suffer to help others but in reality, they also attempt to make others feel guilty
because they are not acting in a same morally and integer manner. The target can reduce their
feelings of guilt by at least supporting the cause of the exemplifier (Jones & Pittman, 1982). This
tactic can actually also involve strategic self-sacrifice (Rosenfeld, 1995). Furthermore, the
exemplifier often wants other people to know how hard he/she has been working, because they
need to advertise their behavior (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). These people can show this by
arriving early to look dedicated or not taking unnecessary holidays, staying at work till late so
people will know they are sincere, trying to appear busy, even at times when things are slower,
coming to the office at night or on weekends to show that they are determined.

Supplication:

It is trying to get others to take pity on you as helpless and needy. One acts like that they
know less than they actually do, so people will help them out. Supplication is used by individuals
who are not able to use any of the strategies presented previously, as it involves exploiting
one’s weaknesses. The individual emphasizes his own dependence and weakness to obtain
help from a more powerful other. By advertising their lack of ability, they attempt to activate a
powerful social rule the norm of social responsibility that says you should help those who are in
need (Rosenfeld, 1995,). Acting like we need assistance so people will help as it involves
attempt to get others to take pity on us as helpless and needy. One heavy cost attached to using
supplication is the costs of one’s self-esteem in admitting one’s incompetence. Trying to gain
assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy in some areas, pretending not to
understand something to gain someone’s help, acting like we need assistance so people will
help us out, pretending to know less than we do so we can avoid an unpleasant assignment are
some of the ways that are usually applied.

Self- What is Self?

Basis of Self

The first basis for selfhood is consciousness turning around toward itself, which is sometimes
called “reflexive consciousness.” or self-knowledge/ self concept .
Human beings have self-awareness, and this awareness enables them to develop elaborate
sets of beliefs about themselves. You can be aware of yourself and know things about yourself.
For example, you might think about a recent experience of success or failure you have had,
including its implications for what possibilities the future may hold for you. Such moments show
the self reflecting on itself and on its store of information about itself.

The second basis of selfhood is in interpersonal relations/ interpersonal self/public self.

The self does not emerge from inside the person but rather is formed in interactions and
relationships with other people. Helps in building connections with others socially. the self
functions to create and sustain relationships, to fulfill important roles, and to keep a favored
position in the social system. Examples of the interpersonal aspect of self would include getting
dressed up for an interview, date, or ceremony, changing your behavior to live up to
someone else’s expectations, and competing against a rival. You might feel embarrassed
on finding that someone has been watching you.

The third and final basis of selfhood is the agent self/executive function- making choices
and exerting control. You may make yourself keep trying to achieve something despite failure,
frustration, and discouragement. You may resist temptation so as to be true to your diet, your
wedding vows, or your religious beliefs. You decide what to major in or where to live. You
choose your goals and then work toward them even when you might not feel like doing so.

The society is the essence of having a an existence of true self. Society helps us in having
meaning in having names, ethnic identities.

What is true self?

The self serves as an interface between inner biological processes and one’s sociological
network.Ralph Turner noted that different cultures (and different groups or historical eras within
a culture) may differ in their ideas about the true self by placing emphasis on either of two main
approaches. One approach emphasizes the inner feelings as the true self. The other focuses on
the way the person acts in public, especially in official roles. Many people recognize that they
sometimes put on a public performance that differs from how they feel inside. Turner’s point
was that cultures disagree as to whether the public actions or the inner feelings count as the
more real or true side of the self.

Selves are somewhat different across different cultures. The most studied set of such cultural
differences involves independence versus interdependence.

Independent Construal of Self

Interdependent Construal of Self

Intergroup Relations: Conflict Theories

Stereotypes, Prejudices, and Discrimination
Stereotypes: Tendency that stems from a basic cognitive need to categorize, simplify and
process the complex world. This is largely based on our membership and how they view other
social events (cognitive component of attitudes towards social group) for eg. same ex marriage,
right for sex workers, etc. Beliefs about social groups in terms of the traits or characteristics that
they are believed to share. Stereotypes are cognitive frameworks that influence the processing
of social information.

Prejudice: Negative emotional responses or dislike based on group membership. Such

experience with prejudice can come about either because we are the target of it, we observe
others’ prejudicial treatment of members of another group such as gays and lesbians as we
discussed in the opening example, or when we recognize prejudice in ourselves and realize our
actions toward some groups are less positive compared to how we respond to members of our
own group. The roots of prejudice can be found in the cognitive and emotional processes that
social psychologists have measured with reference to a variety of different social groups.
Prejudice may be perceived by its perpetrators or its victims as legitimate and justified it can be
seen as entirely illegitimate and something that individuals should actively strive to eliminate.

Discrimination: Differential treatment based on group membership—are not necessarily

perceived by its perpetrators, and responded to by its targets, in the same way.

Stereotypes- cognitive components of attitudes

Prejudice- affective component
Discrimination- behavioral component

Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect Theory 1984

Proposed about risk aversion- We weigh possible losses more heavily than equivalent
potential gains. As a result, we respond more negatively to changes that are framed as potential
losses than positively to changes that are framed as potential gains.
To take a monetary example, the possibility of losing a dollar is subjectively more negative than
the possibility of gaining a dollar is positive.

How might this idea apply to racial perceptions of social changes that could result
in greater racial equality?

Hate groups incite concerns about their own group by claiming they are “losing ground” and that
the targeted group is illegitimately gaining. Hate is then seen as justified in order to protect their
own group. There is both historical and contemporary evidence that hate crimes increase as
minorities are perceived as gaining political power.

Example: Whites will perceive greater equality from the standpoint of a potential “loss” for their
group—compared to their historically privileged position. Whites will therefore respond to
additional movement toward equality more negatively, and suppose that more change has
already occurred, than will blacks. In contrast, if we assume that blacks are likely to see greater
equality as a potential “gain” for them—compared to their historically disadvantaged
position—then change toward increased equality will be experienced as a positive. Increased
equality should be more negative for whites than the same increased equality is positive for
blacks. Research has revealed that white Americans who are highly identified with their racial
group, when their race-based privileges are questioned, do respond negatively—with increased
racism (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Schiffhauer, 2007) and greater support for tokenism, which
ensures that the number of African Americans employed is limited.

Likewise, when immigrants are perceived as a threat to the dominant group’s economic position,
opposition to the naturalization of immigrants increases; such increased legitimization of
discrimination against immigrants has been observed in response to perceived threat in 21
European nations.

However, as we discuss later, the presence of “token” (numerically infrequent) minorities or

women in highly visible positions can lead majority group members to believe that not only has
substantial change occurred, but that there is less need for further social change.

Stereotypes

Stereotypes about groups are the beliefs and expectations that we have concerning what
members of those groups are like. Stereotypes can include more than just traits; physical
appearance, abilities, and behaviors are all common components of stereotypic expectancies.
The traits thought to distinguish between one group and another can be either positive or
negative, they can be accurate or inaccurate, and may be either agreed with or rejected
by members of the stereotyped group. Stereotypes will be stable as long as the nature of the
intergroup relationship between groups is stable.

The human mind seems naturally inclined to sort objects into groups rather than thinking about
each object separately. This process of categorization makes it much easier to make sense of
a complicated world. The process of sorting people into groups on the basis of characteristics
they have in common (such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, or sexual orientation) is
called social categorization. Eg Black people, POC immigrants in america and pther western
cpuntries
Gender Stereotypes

Beliefs and attitudes concerning both men and women can be both positive and negative.
Where on one side women are considered as having traits such as nurturance, warmth, and
considerate, on the other hand women are negatively viewed as weak, dependent, and overly
emotional. Men too are assumed to have both positive and negative stereotypic traits (e.g., they
are viewed as decisive, assertive, and accomplished, but also as aggressive, insensitive, and
arrogant). Men being perceived as high on competence but low on communal
attributes—reflects men’s relatively high status, but at the same time, the strong emphasis on
warmth in the stereotype for women, people tend to feel somewhat more positively about
women on the whole compared to men—a finding described by Eagly and Mladinic (1994) as
the “women are wonderful” effect. This still poses a problem as these traits are not
appropriate to qualify for “high status”. Women’s traits make them seem appropriate for
“support roles” rather than “leadership roles”.

Glass ceiling—a final barrier that prevents women, as a group, from reaching top positions in
the workplace. “Think manager-think male” bias serves an explanation for glassc ceiling. The
typical traits of managers are often seen more similar to that of a typical man and share fewer
trits to a typical woman.

Furthermore, women are increasingly being perceived as just as competent as men in political
leadership roles, with representative samples from many nations reporting reductions in explicit
agreement with ideas such as “men make better political leaders than women” (Eagly &
Sczesny, 2009).

Even after breaking glass ceiling, women face other ways of discrimination. For example,
when women serve as leaders, they tend to receive lower evaluations from subordinates than
males, even when they act similarly (Eagly, Makijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Lyness & Heilman,
2006). Indeed, those women who have been successful in competitive, male-dominated work
environments are most likely to report experiencing gender discrimination compared to those in
gender stereotypic occupations (Redersdorff, Martinot, & Branscombe, 2004), and they are
especially likely to be evaluated negatively when their leadership style is task-focused or
authoritarian.

When women violate stereotypic expectancies concerning warmth and nurturance, and
instead act according to the prototype of a leader, particularly in masculine domains, they are
likely to face hostility and rejection (Glick & Rudman, 2010). Violations of stereotype-based
expectancies by women in the workplace appear to evoke threat in some men, particularly
among those inclined to sexually harass (Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003).
Glass Cliff Effect- Ryan and Haslam

Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam offered the intriguing

hypothesis that times of crisis may be
“prime time” for women’s advancement. Ryan and Haslam
(2005, 2007) provided evidence that women are indeed more
likely to gain admittance to valued leadership positions when a
crisis has occurred, the leadership position is more precarious,
and there is greater risk of failure—what they refer to as the glass
cliff effect.

Tokenism

Where only a few members of a previously excluded group are

admitted, can be a highly effective strategy for deterring collective
protest in disadvantaged groups.
Success of such numerically infrequent high-status women is
taken as evidence that gender no longer matters, people may
infer that the relative absence of women in high places is due to their lacking the necessary
qualities or motivation to succeed. For this reason, the success of a few women may obscure
the structural nature of the disadvantages that women on the whole still face. Thus, the
presence of a few successful women can lead those who do not achieve similar success to
believe that they only have themselves to blame.

Hiring people as token members of their group is just one form of tokenism; it can be manifested
in other ways as well. For perpetrators of this form of tokenism, prior positive actions serve as
a credential that indicates their “nonprejudiced” identity (Monin & Miller, 2001), which in turn
frees them to later discriminate.First, it lets prejudiced people off the hook; they can point to the
token as public proof that they aren’t really bigoted, and the presence of a token helps to
maintain perceptions that the existing system is legitimate and fair—even among members of
the disadvantaged group. Second, it can be damaging to the self-esteem and confidence of the
targets of prejudice, including those few people who are selected as tokens.

Shifting standards

When we use one group as the standard but shift to use another group as the comparison
standard when judging members of a different group. For example, I might refer to the
10-year-old basketball player as “great,” but that does not mean the same thing as when I say
my favorite NBA player is “great.” The 10-year-old is excellent in comparison to other child
players, whereas the NBA player is excellent in comparison to other professional players. Terms
such as good– bad and small–large can mask our use of different standards or category
memberships—in this case, age. The use of subjective rating scales can conceal the presence
of stereotypical judgments, whereas use of objective scales tends to expose them. Numerous
studies have supported the process where “same” ratings on subjective scales do not mean
“equal” on objective scales, or the absence of stereotyping. In fact, the more people show
evidence of using shifting race-based standards, the more they behaviorally discriminate
against black job candidates and organizations (Biernat, Collins, Katzarska-Miller, & Thompson,
2009).

Why people use stereotypes?

● Stereotypes acts as schema, cognitive frameworks for categorizing information. one

important reason people hold stereotypes is that doing so can conserve the cognitive
effort that may be used for other tasks (Bodenhausen, 1993; Macrae, Milne, &
Bodenhausen, 1994). According to this view, we can simply rely on our stereotypes
when responding to others and making behavioral choices.
● Stereotypes can serve important motivational purposes; in addition to providing us
with a sense that we can predict others’ behavior, they can help us feel positive about
our own group identity in comparison to other social groups
● Stereotypes act as theories, guiding what we attend to and exerting strong effects
on how we process social information, Information relevant to an activated stereotype
is often processed more quickly, and remembered better, than information unrelated to it
(Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986; Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Ford, 1997). Similarly,
stereotypes lead us to pay attention to specific types of information—usually,
information consistent with our stereotypes.
● When we encounter someone who belongs to a group about whom we have a
stereotype, and this person does not seem to fit the stereotype (e.g., a highly
intelligent and cultivated person who is also a member of a low-status occupational
group), we do not necessarily alter our stereotype about what is typical of members
of that group. Rather, we place such people into a special category or subtype
consisting of people who do not confirm the schema or stereotype (Queller & Smith,
2002; Richards & Hewstone, 2001). Subtyping acts to protect the stereotype of the
group as a whole

Prejudice
The feeling component of attitudes toward social groups. It reflects a negative response to
another person based solely on that person’s membership in a particular group.

Gordon Allport, in his 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice, referred prejudice as “antipathy”
that is generalized to the group as a whole. In that sense, prejudice is not personal—it is an
affective reaction toward the category. The person is predisposed to negatively evaluate others
bcs they belong to the other group. Prejudice converting into discrimination is based on whether
those actions are acceptable to one or not.
Those who are high in prejudice toward a particular social group are very concerned with
learning the group membership of a person (when that is ambiguous). This is because they
believe the groups have underlying essences—often some biologically based feature that
distinguishes that group from other groups, which can serve as justification for their differential
treatment (Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001). As a result of consistently categorizing people
in terms of their group membership, one’s feelings about that group are legitimized, which
results in discrimination (Talaska, Fiske, & Chaiken, 2008).

Depending on what emotion underlies prejudice toward a particular group, the discriminatory
actions that might be expected could be rather different. For example, when people’s prejudice
primarily reflects anger, then they may attempt to directly harm the outgroup (Mackie, Devos, &
Smith, 2000). In contrast, prejudice based on pity or guilt might lead to avoidance of the
outgroup because of the distress their plight evokes.

Implicit associations—links between group membership and evaluative responses—can be

triggered in a seemingly automatic manner as a result of ingroup and outgroup categorization.
Incidental feeling- esp negative emotions sch as anger are quick to generate automatic
prejudice- associated with outgroup members than with ingroup members.

Origins of Prejudice

Threats at different levels to ingroup values leads to formation of prejudice.

THREATS TO SELF-ESTEEM

When an event threatens people’s

perceptions of their group’s value, they
may retaliate by derogating the source
of the threat. It is also the case that
perceiving a threat to our group can
lead us to identify more with our
ingroup. Eg white americans and black
americans, prejuidice againts immigrant
groups, men’s prejudice against women
moving in male dominating fields,etc

Experiment done where two American college students were shown 6 minute clips from movie
Rocy 4 where in one Rocky wins against Ivan, a russian player and vice versa in other. Those
who were more aligned to their nationality, protested against Russians, there was increase in
their prejudice feelings observed. The more these participants negatively evaluated
Russians, the more their self-esteem based on their group membership subsequently
increased.

Recategorization can help in reducing such prejudice where the groupmmebers are to be made
aware that social groups are more inclusive in nature.

COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES (REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY)

Scarcity of resources leads to competition among groups- pathway to prejudices. Zero-sum

outcomes i.e, if one group procures it, the other is unable to. The realistic conflic theory backs
this up as competition can turn fierce, prejudices escalate in terms of the members of the
groups involved will come to view each other in increasingly negative terms. They may label
each other as “enemies,” view their own group as morally superior, draw the boundaries
between themselves and their opponents more firmly, and, under extreme conditions, may
come to see the opposing group as not even human (Bar-Tal, 2003). Eg. Israel and Palestine
fight over control over Jerusalem.

Research by Sherif- Rober’s cave experiment where two groups of boys, during competition,
grew more hostile towards each other and conformed more with their group. In the final phase,
they were told to restore the water supply, a superordinate goal, and both the groups worked
together and hence helped in reducing prejudice.
Drawback - did not show whethern competition is necessary to produce prejudice?

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION: US VS THEM EFFECT

Social identity theory suggests that individuals seek to feel positively about the groups to which
they belong, and part of our self-esteem is derived from our social group memberships. Since
people who are identified with their group are most likely to express favoritism toward their own
group and a corresponding bias against outgroups, valuing our own group will have predictable
consequences for prejudice.

Experiment by Tajfel- SHowed participants with 2 paintings and the groups were divided
based on who liked paintings of two artists. Allocation of money was the basis of group
prejudice where ingrouo member was allocated more money than outgroup.

Once the social world is divided into “us” and “them,” it takes on emotional significance. Some
differences are granted social importance and have meaning for our identities (Oakes et al.,
1994). People in the “us” category are viewed in more favorable terms, whereas those in the
“them” category are perceived more negatively. Indeed, it may be widely expected that some
groups should be disliked, whereas prejudice toward other groups is seen as not justified.
People may feel it is legitimate to display prejudice toward some groups, but see it as highly
illegitimate to express prejudice toward other groups.
People who are fused with their group are particularly likely to sacrifice their own lives to save
other ingroup members. People fused with Spain, when reminded of the terrorist attacks on their
nation, expressed a greater willingness to shove aside another Spaniard and kill themselves in
order to kill the terrorists compared to people not fused with Spain.

People are motivated to protect the value and distinctiveness of their own group, and that may
be a critical component of what is going on with heterosexuals’ opposition to same-sex
marriage. → prejudice against same-sex marriage they suggested that same-sex marriage
represents a threat to the positive distinctiveness of heterosexual identity in a way that civil
unions do not. Merely sharing the same label—marriage—for same-sex relationships increases
heterosexuals’ negative feelings toward gays and lesbians.

Discrimination