Whenever we perceive any object or event, we implicitly categorize it, comparing the incoming information with our memories of previous encounters with similar objects and events. Memories are not usually photograph-like reproductions of the original stimuli but simplified reconstructions of our original perceptions. Such representations or memory structures are called schemas; they are organized beliefs and knowledge about people, objects, events, and situations. The process of searching in memory for the schema that is [61](1. available to 2. confounded by. 3. consistent with) the incoming data is called schematic processing, or top-down thinking. Schemas and schematic processing permit us to organize and process enormous and potentially overwhelming amounts of information very efficiently. Instead of having to perceive and remember all the details of each new object or event, we can simply note that it is like one of our preexisting schemas and encode or remember only its most prominent features. For instance, schematic processing is what allows us to readily categorize [62](1. edibles 2. consumables 3. tangibles) as either food or drink and then put one on a plate and the other in a glass.
As [63](1. with 2. of 3. regards) objects and events, we also use schemas and schemata processing in our encounters with people. For example, within about 100 milliseconds we categorize people into groups based on salient physical attributes-like race, gender, or age-or by their relation to our own social identity-as in “us versus them.” Schemas can also be more [64](1. broadly 2. loosely 3. narrowly) defined: when someone tells you that you are about to meet someone who is outgoing, you retrieve your “extrovert” schema in [65](1. terms 2. memory 3. anticipation) of the coming encounter. The extrovert schema is a set of interrelated traits such as sociability, warmth, and possibly loudness and impulsiveness.
Without stereotypes, then, we would be [66](1. betrayed 2. overwhelmed 3. prefabricated) by the information that inundates us. If you had no way to organize or access your expectations about different types of people, you would be extraordinarily slow to form impressions of them. Stereotypes help us make inferences, which means to make judgments that go beyond the information given. A classic study of Solomon Asch in 1946 illustrates this effect.
To get a sense of the study, form an impression in your mind of Sam, someone described as “intelligent, skillful, industrious, cold, determined, practical, and cautious.” Based on the impression you have now formed, do you think that Sam is generous? Could you ask him to lend you his car for the day? If you think not, you agree with the participants in Asch’s original study: only 9 percent inferred that a person was generous, [67](1. despite 2. for all 3. given ) these traits. But what if Sam was described as “intelligent, skillful, industrious, warm, determined, practical, and cautious?” Only one trait differs: “cold” is replaced by “warm.” Now would you think that Sam is generous? Probably so. A full 91 percent of those in Asch’s original study [68](1. inferred 2. qualified 3. ruled out) generosity from the same trait constellation that included “warm” instead of “col” So although no information is given about Sam’s likely generosity, we can use our expectations or stereotypes about warm or cold people to make an inference.
Studies like Asch’s have also been done with real rather than hypothetical individuals. For instance, students [69](1. telling 2. having told 3. told) that an upcoming guest lecturer was “rather cold” came to evaluate him quite negatively, whereas other students, who were informed that this same guest lecturer was “rather warm,” came to evaluate him quite favorably, even though they observed the same lecturer in the same way. The bottom line here is that advance reputations are hard to [70](1. maintain 2. shake 3. determine).
Stereotypes can also be like omens–they can predict the future. But this is not because stereotypes are necessarily true. Rather, once activated, stereotypes can set in motion a chain of behavioral processes that serve to [71](1. draw out 2. hold back 3. give out) behavior from others that confirms the initial stereotypes, an effect called the self-fulfilling prophecy. This works because stereotypes don’t just reside in our heads. They leak out in our actions.
To get a feel for this, suppose that women who attend a university in a neighboring city have the reputation for being snobs. In actuality, most are quite friendly, but your sources tell you differently. How will you act toward a student from that university when you cross paths with her? Most likely you’ll look [72](1. back 2. around 3. away). Why should you bother to smile and say hello to a snob? And how will she act? Now that you’ve given her the cold [73](1. ear 2. shoulder 3. feet), she’ll probably do the same. And now that you see her cold, aloof manner, you’ll take that as proof positive that she is a snob and fail to see your own [74](1. role 2. partner 3. reason) in producing this evidence! So your stereotype of women from that university, although initially [75](1. widely 2. typically 3. wrongly) applied to the woman you met, shaped your own behavior, which in turn shaped her behavior, which in turn provided behavioral confirmation for your initially erroneous stereotype. Beliefs have [76](1. a way 2. an edge 3. a time) of becoming reality.
Stereotypes-like top-down, schematic processing more generally-determine how we automatically perceive, recall, and interpret information about people. So, as we form impressions of others, we don’t simply [77](1. take in 2. keep off 3. put out) the available information about them and process it in a thoughtful, unbiased manner. Instead, we filter incoming information through our pre-existing stereotypes and motives, and actively yet spontaneously [78](1. copy 2. block 3. construct) our perceptions, memories, and inferences. Making matters worse, the effects of stereotypes on perception and thinking often remain invisible to us: we often take our constructions to be direct and unbiased representations of reality. In other words, we rarely see the role of stereotypes in shaping our interpretations but instead believe that we simply “call it like it is.” You can begin to see how entrenched and persistent stereotypes [79](1. should 2. can 3. used to) be: even if initially incorrect, people can come to believe that a stereotype is “true” because they construct-and seama world in which it is true.
Stereotypes can be activated automatically, simply by seeing someone’s face. Plus, once activated, stereotypes can influence our thinking and behavior in ways that actually draw out stereotype-confirming behaviors from ourselves and from others. Stereotypes help us process information, and yet we have to pay the price for the efficiency stereotypes [80](1. confirm 2. bring 3. retain), and the price can be measured in terms of biases in our perceptions and memories of the information given and in the inference we make. If our stereotypes are biased, can we ever truly come to know another person accurately?
In the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed a similar yearning to be free from the pernicious effects of stereotypes. In his famous speech entitled “I have a dream,” King voiced his hope that black children might “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Dr. King was actually describing a process that social psychologists call individuation, which means assessing an individual’s personal qualities on a person-by-person basis. To override the effects of stereotypes and form more accurate and personalized impressions of others through individuation, we need to understand the role of stereotypes in shaping our interpretations.
コメントを残す