UNIT2 SOCIAL COGNITIO} UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR-I* Structure 2.0. Objectives 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Schema 221 Types of Schema 22.11 Person Schemas 22.12 SelfSchemas 22.13 Group Schemas 22.14 Role Schemas 22.15 Event Schemas 222 Impactof Schema 2.3 Modes of Social Thought Processing, 231 The Continuum Model of Processing 232 Automatic vs. Controlled Processing 2.4 Heuristics: The Mental Shortcuts 241 Availablity Heuristics 242 Representativeness Heursties 243 Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristics 2.5 _ Sources of Errors in Social Cognition 25.1 Cognitive Experiential Self Theory 252 Paying Attention to Inconsistent Information 253 Negativity Biss 254. Planning Fallacy 25S Potential Costs of Thinking Too Much 256 Counterfactual Thinking 257 Magical Thinking 2.6 LetUsSumUp 2.7 Unit End Questions 2.8 Answersto SelfAssessment Questions 2.9 Glossary 2.10 Suggested Readings and References 2.0 OBJECTIVES After reading this unit, you will be able to: © Understand the meaning of social cognition; Describe meaning, types and impact of schema; . © Explain the concept and relevance of heuristics; and ‘© Discuss the sources of errors in social cognition. © Dr. Ari Sudan Tiwari, Scientist ‘E°, Defence Insitute of Psychological Research, Ministry of Defence, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054 (INDIA), 7vidual Level Processes 28 2.1__INTRODUCTION ‘Human beings are social animals. They think, feel and act by involving themselves, others and larger collectives throughout every moment ofthe day. The enormous yet seemingly natural tasks of social perception, social memory, and social decision-making in which they engage; and the by-products of such tasks constitute the study of 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. More specifically, ‘while studying social cognition social psychologists attempt to answer following important questions of social lives of human being: © How dowe register, encode, classify, store and utilse the overflow of information. in our social world? © What processes our cognitive system follows when we receive information about others in order to form an overall impression of them? © What we do in order to understand the reasons behind and origins of behaviours. ofpeople around us? ¢ _Isthe processing of social information biased? What biases and errors generally ‘we commit in the process of social perception? Social psychology has very vigorously attempted to answer these questions in its branch. of social cognition. Inthis unit we will understand the concepts of'schema and heuristics and the modes of social thought. We will also discuss about the sources oferrors that affects our social cognition. With the help of this unit you will come to know about the role played by our cognitive processes in social interaction with others. 2.2 SCHEMA Our social interactions are largely guided by our expectations regarding the people involved inthe interactions, oles played by them in the specific situations, norms guiding, behaviours ofpeople involved in the interaction and the likely events and actions in the situation. Such expectations originate from our previous experiences and knowledge of people, roles, normsand events of similar kinds, Social psychologists refer it asschemas. Schemas are defined as cognitive structures containing broader expectations and knowledge of the social world that help us systematically organise social information Schemas contain not only some precise and explicit illustrations, they also inelude our inferences and assumptions about of the persons, events, situations, ete. Schemas help usto predict the likely behaviours of people occupying specific roles ina social interaction and sequence of actions in a particular social event. Further, schemas influence the process of encoding, storage and retrieval of social information. They also guide us in ‘making inferences about the information which is not available to us in a particular social situation. By allits functions, a schema significantly reduces the efforts we put forth in processing the social information, 2.2.1 ‘Types of Schema Social psychologists have categorised schemas into different types: person schemas, selfeschemas, group schemas, role schemas and event schemas.2.2.1.1 Person Schemas Cognitive structures that attempt to illustrate the personalities of others are called as person schema, Person schemas try to explain personalities of either specific persons (such as Mahatma Gandhi, Mahatma Buddha, J.R. D. Tata, etc.) o explain personalities interms of some universal ypes (such as extravert, introvert, sober, sociable, depressive, submissive, etc.) Person schemas help us n classifying and organising our understanding about the personalities of people around us and lead to make internal predictions about their behaviour. Person schemas, often referred as person prototypes, generally consist ofa composition of personality traits that we use to classify people and to predict their behaviour in particular situations. Generally dominant personality traits are utilised as criteria for categorising people in our social world. Based on observations during our interactions we may infer that ‘A's submissive or that “B’ is honest or “C”is dominant. ‘This helps us in making expectations in our social interactions and giving us a sense of controland predictability inthe situation. 2.2.1.2 Self Schemas Similar to the way we receive, encode, store and utilise the information about other people, we develop schemas that describe our self concept based on past experiences, Self schemas are cognitive representations about us that organise and process all related information (Markus, 1977). Selfschema is developed from the traits that we think as core of our self-concept, Self schemas describe the components that uniquely characterise and define our self-concept, We have different context specific selfschemas that are activated in different social situations. For example, self schema of A as. commanding and dominant when he isin his office may be opposite from his self'schema as submissive and obedient when he is with his father. 2.2.1.3 Group Schemas Group schemas, often referred to as stereotypes, are the schemas regarding the people representing a particular social group or category (Hamilton, 1981). Stereotypes specify the traits, qualities, attributes and behaviours presumably characterising the members of that social group or category. In our social interactions we try to understand our social world with the help of number of stereotypes about people of different castes, religious groups, specific geographical regions, speaking different languages, ethnic groups, et. 2.2.1.4 Role Schemas Role schemas characterise traits, qualities, attributes and behaviours of persons with a particular role ina group. Role schemas help us in understanding and predicting the bbchaviours of persons who occupy specific roles in a social group. Role schemas are categorised in various ways. For example there are role schemasassociated with various, occupational roles, suchas teachers, scientists, doctors, salesmanagers, HR managers, ete, Similarly, role schemas are also associated with other kinds of roles in social groups, suchas group leader, captain ofa sports team, etc. Our initial interactions with a personare broadly guided by the cues that prominently visible to us. However, as our familiarity with the person increases importance of such physical cues is reduced and. trait-based person schemas are given more importance in guiding our social interactions, Fiske (1998). 2.2.1.8 Event Schemas Event schemas, also referred to as scripts, are cognitive structures that describe the expected sequences of actions and behaviours of people participating in an event in our Social Cogai Understanding Social Behaviour-l 29vidual Level Processes 30 everyday social activities. We explicate scripts by asking people to describe that what actually happens ina particular social event, what isthe sequence of the ‘what types of behaviours people do during the event. For example, if we are asked to explain the appropriate behavioural sequence of an Indian classroom, we ean very ly describe the behavioural sequences of teacher and students. The phenomenon event schema or script indicate that we store the behaviours that are appropriate in particular situation for our broad understanding and whenever we are encountered to such situation the script is automatically activated in order to facilitate our smooth, interaction inthe situation 2.2.2 Impact of Schema Our social environment is flooded with information at any given time and its beyond ‘our cognitive capacity to process allthose information instantly. We cannot respond to all those social stimuli in equally efficient manner and therefore, we are required to focuson some of the most relevant and important information. Schemas provide us a practical tool to make precise social judgements up to an extent by helping us in registering, encoding, categorising, organising, storing, comprehending and retrieving the social information and consequently, making decision about the appropriate behaviour ina given situation, ‘Schemas are theory-driven: Being originated ffom our previously acquired knowledge about the social surroundings, schemas function as ‘theory- driven’ structures that enable usto classify and organise our specific social interactions and broader social experiences, This suggests that the information available in the social environment is rarely used in social interactions, instead schematic theories operate subconsciously in the background and therefore, we comprehend and act in a novel social situation based our schema driven assumptions (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Impact ofschemas on memory: Humanmemory is mainly consideredasreconstructive in nature. In place of remembering all specific fine points of social encounters and situations, we generally remember only prominent details characterising and defining the situations which activate the schema when we require and subsequently schema fills inother minute details. Such impact ofschema on memory suggests that schemas further determine that what details will be remembered and which details will be forgotten. When we try to recall about a Social event, we are more likely to remember those details that are consistent with our schemas than those that are inconsistent (Cohen, 1981). Impact of schemas on inferences in social interactions: Most of our social interactions are facilitated by the schema driven assumptions and inferences we draw about various people in our social surroundings (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). At number of ‘occasions there are large gaps in our understanding of the social situations which are filled up by the schema, When we are unaware of certain information about someone, ‘we draw some inferences consistent with our schema in order to create coherent and complete understanding of the person. For example, ifyou know your roommate who is fitness erazy, you can infer that he will love company of another friend of yours who isasportsperson Impact of schemas on social judgements: Several schemas, particularly person schemas represent the cognitive structures refering our evaluations, judgements and affective orientations about people and events in our social environment. Therefore, ‘when a particular schema is activated it leads us to view the associated social stimulus in the categories of good-bad, normal-abnormal, positive-negative, etc. and consequently, it strongly elicits feelings consistent with our evaluations.Schemas are integrated and stable in nature: Schemas are developed and strengthened with our experiences in particular social situations and further they are stored in the form of integrated structures of associated components. During our social interactions even a single accessed component ofa schema is capable of activating the whole schema, as strong associative links exist among the components of the schema (Fiske & Dyer, 1985). Once schemas are developed and are recurrently activated during our social encounters they become relatively stable part of our social thought process and further they resist change even when we are encountered with the evidences inconsistent withthe existing schemas. Self Assessment Questions 1 Fillin the following blanks: 1) - : influence the proc information, s of encoding, storage and retrieval of social 2) Most of our are facilitated by the schema driven assumptions and inferences we draw about various people in our social surroundings. 3) nounnnnee Which are often referred to as stereotypes, are the schemas regarding the people representing a particular social group or category. 4) Cognitive structures that attempt to illustrate the personalities of others are called as 5). Selfschemais developed fom the traits that we think as core of our 2.3 MODES OF SOCIAL THOUGHT PROCESSING 2.3.1. The Continuum Model of Processing ur presumptions and prejudices often result into distorted thoughts and biased evaluations. However, our thought process isnot always guided by presumptions and, prejudices in order to minimise cognitive efforts like cognitive misers. Instead, we often analyse the social information in a very cautious, vigilant, systematic and piecemeal (progressive) manner. Fiske and Neuberg (1990) suggested that we process social information along acontinuum starting from category driven schematic processing to data driven systematic processing, They further suggested that category driven schematic processing is employed in the when information is explicit and less important to the person; whereas, data driven systematic processing is employed when the information is confsing and comparatively more significant for the person. Data driven systematic processing is employed also when we require very high accuracy in our social judgements, ‘We encounter with different people in our everyday social interactions. With their varying importance to us we decide that that up to what extent information regarding them is ystematically processed and data regarding which people willbe superficially processed inorder to form their impressions. 2.3.2 Automatic ys. Controlled Processing We follow two distinct ways of approaches of information processing in our social thought: an organised, logical, and highly purposeful approach known as controlled processing, or a quick, relatively effortless and intuitive-spontaneous approach known as automatic processing. Devine (1989) applied the difference between the two ways, of processing to explain the process by which stereotypes are activated. Social Cognition: Understanding Social Behaviour-l 31vidual Level Processes 2 Devine proposed that we acquire a number of social stereotypes during our childhood years through the process of socialisation. Such stereotypes are further strengthened bby repeated exposure in our social encounters and consequently they become an integral part ofour social knowledge structure. In our subsequent encounter with the social groups the corresponding knowledge structures are activated automatically without ‘our conscious and purposefil thinking. Devine (1989) further argued that the stereotypes are automatically activated with almost equal strength for those who are high prejudiced, as well as for those who are low prejudiced, Devine also demonstrated that stereotypes are activated in both high and low prejudiced people; even when cues for stereotypes were subliminally presented and therefore, participants were not consciously aware of ‘cues presented to them, 2.4 HEURISTICS: THE MENTAL SHORTCUTS In our everyday social interactions, we are flooded by information which generally exceeds the capacity of our cognitive system. In such situations, we devise and employ various strategies which help us to maximum utilisation of our cognitive resources in minimum cognitive efforts; consequently leading to an automatic, rapid, spontaneous and effortless social thought process. Using heuristics, a type of mental shortcuts, is one of the most prominent such strategies in which we make complex decisions in an automatic, rapid, spontaneous and effortless manner by using simple rules. Ata certain time, many schemas are available to us which may guide our social interactions. We employ heuristics in order to select a particular schema to guide our social interactions. Some of such heuristics are discussed below. 2.4.1 Ay: Some schemas are more frequently used in our social interactions than others. A schema which ismost recently used is more readily available to usto guide our social interactions. Schwarz.et al. (1991) proposed a different explanation to availabilty heuristics in terms ‘of ease ofretrieval. They argued that schemas consistent with the examples which are easier to remember are more readily available and therefore, used in our social thoughts. Thus they emphasised the ease of remembering a particular example associated with certain schema than the number of times the schema is used. lability Heuristics 2.4.2, Representativeness Heuristics Representativentess heuristic is often used when we are faced with situations with high level ofuncertainty. Insuch situations, we generally focus on very essential properties of the social entities and match them with various schemas held in our cognitive system, Furthermore, the schema which most closely resembles with the characteristics of the particular social entity is selected. In certain situations, representativeness heuristic es so strong that it is employed even in the presence of contradictory evidences information. 2.4.3. Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristics Inasituation where we are required to take a social decision or to express our opinion ‘on some social issue about which we do not have expertise, we usually try to make a ‘guess based on a somewhat workable cue. This cue functions as a starting point or as an anchor and further we make modifications and adjustments in the starting point in order to arrive at our final decision or opinion. Suppose thal you are asked in an exam to provide the population of Delhi. Ifyou do not know that population but you know the population of Haryana, you might use thepopulation of Haryana as an anchor and thinking that Delhi must be somewhat smaller than Haryana, adjust the population of Haryana downward to produce your guess. In ‘most cases of social judgements, we generally use ourselves asan anchor. 2.5 SOURCES OF ERRORS IN SOCIAL COGNITION Asahuman being, we consciously desire to think logically in order to make somewhat error-fiee decisions, evaluations and judgements about people and events in social surroundings. However, at various occasions our social thought process ignores certain, logical standards and we put in less cognitive effort to comprehend our social world which subsequently leads to errors in our social cognition. 2.5.1 Cognitive-Experiential Self Theory Cognitive-experiential selftheory argues that many times we prefer our intuitive thoughts, based on past experiences over logical thinking in order to evaluate a social situation, For example, when a cricket player scores a century witha pair of shoes he continues to wear the same pair ofshoes in coming matches as well despite the probable dangerous consequences of wearing an old pair ofshoes. Such intuitive thoughts originate from the past experience that the old shoes were lucky for him. 2.5.2. Paying Attention to Inconsistent Information ‘When we encounter with a person ina social situation, information inconsistent with his! her role draws our attention even at cost of some consistent and even more relevant information. Social psychologists have provided evidence that inconsistent information is better remembered than the consistent information about gender roles. Bardach and. Park (1996) reported that the participants remembered the qualities inconsistent with a gender (‘nuturant’ for males and ‘competitive’ for females) better than those that are usually inconsistent witha gender (‘adventurous” for males and ‘emotional’ for females). ‘The findings indicated tha the inconsistent information may be preferred over important consistent information leading to potential errors in social cognition, 2.5.3 Negativity Bias ‘The negativity bias refers to the notion that, even when of equal intensity, human being has the tendency'to give greater weight to negative social information and entities (events, objects, personal traits, ete.) as compared to positive ones. When traits differ in terms of their positivity and negativity, negative traits are disproportionately impact the final impression, 2.5.4 Planning Fallacy While deciding about the time we will ake to complete a task, we often underestimate the time needed and at the time of execution we generally overshoot the time period that we had assigned to ourselves. This is known as planning fallacy. The reason for this is that while initially aking the decision about the time required, we generally focus on events or actions to occur in future rather than focusing on the time we had taken to accomplish a task in the past. This tendency disallows us to do a realistic estimate of time needed. Furthermore, at the time of initial decision-making, even ifone is reminded ofthe excessive time incurred inthe past, the delay is usualy attributed to some extemal factors rather than one’s own capabilities to the finish the work in time. 2.5.5 Potential Costs of Thinking Too Much At mumber of occasions, we excessively do careful thinking resulting into confusion, Social Cogai Understanding Social Behaviour-l 3vidual Level Processes Mu frustration and wrong judgement. Wilson and Schooler (1991) asked halfoftheir research participants to “simply rate” the several strawberry jams and the other half ofthem to “deeply analyse” the reasons for the ratings they themselves gave to each jam. The researchers also took the opinion of experts (who professionally compared various, products) about the correctness of judgement made of the two groups of participants. They found that, according to the experts, the judgement of the second half of the participants (consisting of participants who deeply analysed their own rating) were not as accurate as that of the first half (consisting of participants who simply rated the jams). 2.5.6 Counterfactual Thinking Counterfactual thinking isa tendency in which people think contrary to what actually occurred. People think about the already occurred events by framing some possible alternatives in terms of “What if?” and the “If had only...” For example, a cricketer thinks that “what could have happened if played in that match!” 2.5.7 Magical Thinking Magical thinking isthe kind of thinking that involves irrational assumptions often associated with law of similarity or law of contagion, Law of similarity states our assumption that people similar to cach other in appearance may be having similar fundamental characteristics, For example, some children might not like to eat a biscuit in the shape ofa lizard. Law of contagion is the belief that when two people or objects come in contact with each other, they pass on their properties to one another and such an impact last long even after the contact is over. For example, one might not like to wear the coat used by an HIV patient even after its dry-cleaned. Self Assessment Questions 2 State whether the following are ‘True’ or ‘False’ 1). Magical thinking is a tendeney in which people think contrary to what actually occurred . 2) Cognitive-experiential selftheoryargues that many times we prefer our intuitive thoughts based on past experiences over logical thinking in order to evaluate a social situation 3). Representativeness heuristic is often used when we are faced with situations with high levelofuncertainty 4) Ourpresumptions and prejudices never result into distorted thoughts and biased evaluations . 5) Heuristics are a type of mental shortcuts 2.6 LETUSSUM UP Thus, it can be summed up that social cognition isa very relevant process at individual level. This process is facilitated by cognitive representations of the social world in our ‘minds called schemas. Distinct types of'schemas, person schemas, sel-schemas, group schemas, role schemas and event schemas; firnction as organising structures influence the encoding, storing, recall of complex social information and social judgements. To deal with the state of information overload in the social situations where the demands ‘on our cognitive system are greater than its capacity, people adopt various heuristicstrategies. Inour everyday social interactions, we are flooded by information which. generally exceeds the capacity of our cognitive system. The unit started with the explanation of concept and meaning of social cognition, which was followed by the meaning, types and impact of schema. The unit also explained the concept and relevance of heuristics. Finally the various sources oferrors in social cognition were also discussed inthe present unit, 2.7 UNIT END QUESTIONS 1) Define the concept of social cognition and schema? 2) Deseri process. c various types of schema and also evaluate its impact on social thought 3) Present an account of modes of social thought processing as proposed by psychologists and also explain various sources of errors in social cognition. 4) Discuss the various sources of error involved in social cognition. 5) What isthe role ofheuristis in social cognition? Describe various types of heuristics «employed in social cognition 2.8 ANSWERS TO SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS Self Assessment Questions 1 1) Schemas 2) Social interactions 3) Group schemas 4) Personschema 5) Self-concept Self Assessment Questions 2 1) False 2) True 3) Tue 4) False 5) True 2.9 GLOSSARY Social cognition : The process by which we interpret, analyze, remember and use information about the social world Schemas + Cognitive structures and representations of social world in our minds that help us organise social information and contain general expectations and knowledge of the world. Social Cognition: Understanding Social Behaviour-l 35vidual Level Processes 36 Person schemas + Cognitive structures that organise our conceptions ofothers’ personalities and enable us o develop expectations about others’ behaviour. Self schemas + Cognitive representations about us that organise and process all related information. Group schemas : Also called stereotypes, are schemas regarding. the members ofa particular social group or social category and indicate that certain attributes and behaviours are typical of members ofthat group or social category. Role schemas + Indicate that certain attributes and behaviours are typical of persons occupying a particular role in ‘a group andare often used to understand and to predict the behaviours of people who occupy rok. Event schemas + Often referred to as cognitive scripts, describe behavioural and event sequences in everyday activities; specifies the activities that constitute the event, the predetermined order or sequence for these activities, and the persons (or role ‘occupants participating in the event; provide the basis for anticipating the future, setting goals and making plans. Heuristies + Cognitive strategies to deal with the state of information overload inthe social situations whe the demands on our cognitive system are greater than its capacity. 2.10 SUGGESTED READINGSAND REFERENCES. . Fein, S., & Markus, H.R. (2017). Social Psychology (10* ed.) Kassin, Leaming. engage Branscombe, N.R., & Baron, R. A. (2016). Social Psychology (14 ed). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Asch, S. B, (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290, Bardach, L., & Park, B. (1996). The effects of in-group/out-group status on memory for consistent and inconsistent behavior of an individual. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 169-178. Cohen, C. E. (1981), Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 441-452. and controlled 18, Devine, P. C. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automati components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, Dreben, E. K., Fiske, S.'T,, & Hastie, R. (1979). The independence of evaluative anditem information: Impression and recall order effects in behavior-based impression formation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1758178. Fiske, S. I. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbe Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Ath ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Fiske, S.T., & Dyer, L. M. (1985). Structure and development of social schemata: Evidence fiom positive and negative transfer effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 839-852. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from. category: based to individuating processes: Influences ofinformation and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23 (pp. 1-74). New York: Academie Press. Fiske, $. T, & Taylor, S. B. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: MeGraw- Hil. Hamilton, D.L. (1981). Stereotyping and intergroup behavior: Some thoughts on the cognitive approach. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior (pp. 333-353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Heider, F, (1944), Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review 51, 258-374, Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Jones, E.E., & Davis, K. E, (1965). From actsto dispositions. In. Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Nol. 2). New York: Academic Press. Jones, E. E., & Goethals, GR. (1971). Order effects in impression formation: Attribution context and the nature of the entity. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Jones, E.E,, & Nisbett, R. (1972). The actor and observer: Divergent perceptions of, the causes ofbehavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. W. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A, (1967). The Attribution of Attitudes, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 3, I-24. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Hd.) Vebraska Symposium in Motivation, 1967. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128. Luchins, A. S. (1957). Experimental attempts to minimize the impact of first impressions, InC. I, Hovland (Ed.), The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Markus, H. (1977). Selfschemas and processing information about the self Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78 Miiller,D.’T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution of Causality Fact or Fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225, Social Cogai Understanding Social Behaviour-l 37vidual Level Processes 38 Nisbett, R.E., Caputo, C., Legant, P., & Maracek, J. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 154164, Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis ofprejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461-476. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F, Klumpp, G, Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991), Ease ofetrieval as information: Another look at the availablity heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61, 195-202. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the hhead phenomena. In... Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131 Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer Verlag. Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W.(1991). Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181-192.