Social Cognition: Thinking Categorically about Others

Abstract

In attempting to make sense of other people, perceivers regularly construct and use categorical representations to simplify and streamline the person perception process. Noting the importance of categorical thinking in everyday life, our emphasis in this chapter is on the cognitive dynamics of categorical social perception. In reviewing current research on this topic, three specific issues are addressed: (a) When are social categories activated by perceivers, (b) what are the typical consequences of category activation, and (c) can perceivers control the influence and expression of categorical thinking? Throughout the chapter, we consider how integrative models of cognitive functioning may inform our understanding of categorical social perception.

La Edad Se Correlaciona Directamente con la Fuerza de los Estereotipos de Género: Evidencia Obtenida en una Tarea de Memoria de Reconocimiento

“…Como veremos, en general, mientras más fuerte es la presencia de un concepto en la memoria, mayores son sus efectos en nuestra habilidad para recordar casos de ese concepto. Nuestra lógica fue que, dado que los estereotipos pueden ser considerados conceptos sobre categorías de personas (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000), deberíamos poder usar técnicas desarrolladas para el estudio de conceptos para investigar estereotipos de género (e.g., Lenton, Blair & Hastie, 2001). …”

Looking through the eyes of the powerful

“…We expect this to be the case based on an analogous set of research that aims to answer the question whether the valence of stereotypes change when people stereotype to satisfy different goals (Van den Bos & Stapel, 2008). This research departs from the observation that stereotypes can serve multiple goals, most notably self-enhancement (Fein & Spencer, 1997;Schwinghammer, Stapel, & Blanton, 2006;Tesser, 1988) and comprehension goals (Fiske & Taylor, 1991;Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000;Strack, 2004 …”

Brain and cognitive evolution: Forms of modularity and functions of mind.

“…For instance, the nature of in-group-out-group relationships varies widely. These relationships range from endemic conflict with the goal of exterminating the out-group to relatively low levels of conflict combined with tolerance and social exchange (Alexander, 1989;Chagnon, 1988;Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). If an ingroup-out-group social psychology did in fact evolve in the context of coalition-based competition, then the patterns of in-groupout-group relationships-especially the degree of hostility and conflict-should, and do, have some relation to resource availability in the local ecology (e.g., Sherif et al, 1961;Stephan, 1985).…”