Using Cognitive Schemata

Psychologists agree that in order to recognize objects and follow sequences of actions, we must possess internal representations of these objects and se­quences. These mental guidelines are called schemata, and they help us identify and organize incoming information. When we encounter a perceptual object, we store its image in short-term memory while we search for a schema that makes sense of it. I, for example, have a “Who wants to be a millionaire” schema. Having seen the show many times, I know the usual plot. If you have never seen the show, you must work out your own understandings, although a general quiz-show schema can help you make sense of the format. If you were from a culture without TV, however, you would lack the interpretive schemata needed to understand the conventions we take for granted. Schemata make pro­cessing rapid and effortless, although, as we shall see, they can sometimes dis­tort perception.

Some events or objects are easily encoded into existing schemata, whereas others force us to create new schemata or to modify old ones. We have sche­mata for physical objects, types of people (including ourselves), personal traits, relationships, and sequences of actions. The three most important types of schemata are person prototypes, personal constructs, and scripts.

Person Prototypes

We often use schemata to form impressions of other people. Person prototypes are idealized representations of a certain kind of person. For example, you may have a prototypical image of a professor, an extrovert, and a beauty queen. These images allow you to identify whether or not a given person belongs in one of these categories.

The human need to categorize others is very strong. When we encounter someone who doesn’t fit neatly into a category, we feel off balance. The information contained in prototypes consists of traits, patterns of be­havior, and role relations that fit our idea of a certain type of person.

Prototypes affect communication. We are likely to communicate openly with people who fit positive prototypes and to reject those who fit negative proto­types. Although prototypes are absolutely necessary if we are to process information about people, they can be unfair and simplistic. If our prototypes are inaccurate or incomplete, we mis­judge those around us. Only if we are willing to revise prototypes and to keep an open mind can we prevent these perceptual mechanisms from leading to prejudice.

Personal Constructs

In our daily interactions we often use another kind of schema called a personal construct. Personal constructs are the characteristics we notice on a daily basis about others. Whereas prototypes are global categorizations, constructs are spe­cific descriptors. Personal constructs belong to us rather than to the person we are judging. Lisa and Jim, for example, have a mutual friend Toby. To Lisa, Toby is generous, easygoing, and somewhat insecure. To Jim, Toby is sloppy, a lazy thinker, and somewhat mean-spirited. The adjectives each uses to describe Toby are examples of personal constructs. And examining these constructs tells us not only about Toby but about Lisa and Jim as well.

Personal constructs are called personal because we carry them around and use them to describe our social worlds. Out of the hundreds of characteristics that can be attached to another human being, we tend to use only a few. Some of them are suggested to us by recent events (if we have been studying the latest political scandal, con­structs such as “manipulative” may occur to us), others are our habitual ways of judging people. Constructs that are important to us and that we frequently use, regardless of circumstances, are called chronically accessible constructs, and these constructs are likely to color and bias our judgments. Two people may “pick up very different information about a third person, and interpret the same infor­mation in very different ways.” Chronically accessible constructs often auto­matically affect the judgments and decisions we make about other people. I may judge others in terms of their physical appearance, you may judge others in terms of their openness and honesty, and yet a third person may notice only how successful or ambitious others are. Each of us sees what is important to us, and we may miss what others see. We may therefore be biased in our percep­tions. As chronic constructs operate outside of our control and aware­ness and we cannot adjust for them through some intentional and controlled process, they can lead to perceptual problems.

To examine your own personal constructs, consider a number of people you know and write down adjectives to describe them. Looking at your com­pleted list, you’ll see the kinds of judgments you habitually make about others. Are the constructs you listed based on physical or psychological characteristics? Are they fair or unfair? What do they tell you about how you evaluate people?

When individuals use only simple, undifferentiated constructs based mainly on physical characteristics, we say that they lack cognitive complexity. Cognitive complexity occurs when an individual has a large, rich, and varied set of personal constructs. The cognitively complex person is willing to com­bine seemingly contradictory characteristics in creative ways, realizing that people are not all good or all bad.

Scripts

A third kind of schema is called a script. Scripts are schemata for action sequences. If we experience a situation repeatedly, we abstract its essential fea­tures and identify the order in which things happen. We have scripts for all kinds of simple actions: eating in a restaurant, greeting people in passing, working out at a gym, walking to class. Scripts allow us to behave effortlessly, without having to think much about what to do next. When we find ourselves in highly scripted situations, we feel confident. When we encounter unusual or novel situa­tions for which we have no script, we feel uncomfort­able and unsure of ourselves.

Scripts, then, allow us to interact mindlessly, almost as though we were on automatic pilot. When we perform familiar, well-practiced behaviors such as driving to work, we need not pay close attention to what we are doing. As we drive, we can think of the day ahead or work out a personal problem, and we may find ourselves at the office without really knowing how we got there. (Oc­casionally, in fact, we may end up at the office even though we had intended to go somewhere else, simply because we were following a script.)

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16