Is Limited Information Processing Capacity the Cause of Social Stereotyping?

Oakes, Penélope J.; Turner, John

doi:10.1080/14792779108401859

Cited by 128 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because we regard social identity as just as valid an aspect of person definition as individual personality (Oakes & Turner, 1990 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stereotyping represents a judgment of similarity and difference, always context-specific and made relative to a frame of reference (Turner & Oakes, 1989). Social groups and their cognitive representations, stereotypes, are not static entities and social categorization does not involve imposing some fixed, rigid structure on the contents of perception in order to simplify them (Oakes & Turner, 1990).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In emphasizing fit and the meaningful explanation of social regularities we draw attention to social categorizations as usdul because rrality-bad representations of people, not useful because information-reducing (Oakes & Turner, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations

Oakes

Turner

Haslam

1991

British J Social Psychol

Self Cite

420

317

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It was hypothesized that the perceived social category membership of others becomes salient as a description and explanation of their behaviour where their attitudes ‘fit’ the social categorization. Fit is defined as the degree to which the attributes of others are perceived to correlate with group membership in a normatively consistent direction. In Expt 1 subjects viewed tape—slide presentations of six‐person groups where gender composition (‘solo’ or ‘collective’) and the pattern of agreement (‘deviance’ or ‘conflict’) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 design to produce a correlation between gender and attitudes in the solo/deviance and collective/conflict conditions. In Expt 2, subjects viewed videos of a group of three arts and three science students in which the normative consistency of an arts target person (‘consistent’ or ‘inconsistent’) and the pattern of agreement (‘consensus' or ‘conflict’ or ‘deviance’) were manipulated in a 2 × 3 design to produce a normative correlation between faculty membership and attitudes in the consistent/conflict condition. Salience was measured by stereotyping in terms of, and attributions to, social category memberships. The results of both experiments were largely consistent with predictions.

show abstract

“…Because we regard social identity as just as valid an aspect of person definition as individual personality (Oakes & Turner, 1990 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations

Oakes

Turner

Haslam

1991

British J Social Psychol

Self Cite

420

317

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rejecting both the cognitive miser and the ef ciency expert metaphors, researchers operating within the framework of self-categorization theory have proposed what they see as a very different metaphor for understanding categorical person perception, namely that of the 'meaning seeker' (Oakes & Turner, 1990). According to this account, perceivers employ categorical thinking to make sense of the social world.…”

Section: Truth Seekers and Sense Makersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social cognition: Categorical person perception

Macrae

Bodenhausen

2001

British J of Psychology

224

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In attempting to make sense of others, perceivers regularly construct and use categorical representations (e.g. stereotypes) to streamline the person perception process. A debate that has dominated recent theorizing about the nature and function of these representations concerns the conditions under which they are activated in everyday life. The present article reviews this work and considers the automaticity of category activationin person perception.But then, the people became terribly afraid and anxious. For lo! the Cognitive Miser had become transformed, by the magic of further research, into the Cognitive Monster. No longer did the creature use simplifying categories and stereotypes by choice or strategy, their use had become an addictionuncontrollable, not a matter of choice at all-and the creature's Will was powerless to do anything else. 'We must do something!' cried the people of Social Psychology. 'We must slay the monster!' And so their heroes came forth. Bargh (1999, p. 361) In identifying social cognition as the dominant theme in contemporary experimental social psychology, it is gratifying to acknowledge the prominent contribution that British research has made to the development of work in this area. Motivated by the desire to understand how perceivers make sense of their social worlds, researchers have employed a social-cognitive framework in an attempt to inform a range of issues in experimental social psychology. The fruits of this approach have been many. To give but a brief avour of some of the topics that have bene ted from a cognitive analysis of everyday thinking and behaviour, social-cognitive approaches have advanced our understanding of attitudes, language, attributions, the self, everyday memory, judgment and decision-making, and person perception. In each of these areas, moreover, British research has played an important role in shaping the intellectual landscape. By providing process speci city and theoretical coherence, social-cognitive approaches have illuminated numerous dark corners of the discipline. Given the focus of this special issue (i.e. perception and cognition), however, our emphasis in the present article is on person

show abstract

“…Stereotyped traits are commonly used to reflect the dimensions along which to measure the meta-contrast ratio because of their presumed relevance to definitions of the group Lee, 1992;Oakes & Turner, 1990;Stephan, 1977;Turner, et al, 1987;Turner & Oakes, 1986Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). For example, a woman's social self-categorization is said to be salient when she perceives differences between men and women to be larger than differences among women in terms of their tendency to be "emotional" or "sensitive".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceiving and Responding to the Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy

Foster

Matheson

1999

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explain why minority group members recognize less personal than group discrimination, research has focused on cognitive processes. Although within self-categorization theory it may be argued that the discrepancy is a function of a salient social self that perceptually discounts the personal self, it can also be argued that depersonalization allows for the cognitive possibility of perceiving similar amounts of personal and group discrimination. The present study suggests that, consistent with group consciousness theories, the social self may serve to both discount as well as integrate the social self, depending on the way in which the social self is defined. Using structural equation modeling, the present study finds that defining the social self along social experiences is associated with lower personal/group discrimination discrepancy scores, which in turn are associated with greater participation in collective action. Implications for different definitions of the social self are discussed.

show abstract

Is Limited Information Processing Capacity the Cause of Social Stereotyping?

Cited by 128 publications

References 41 publications

Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations

Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations

Social cognition: Categorical person perception

Perceiving and Responding to the Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About