Social Cognitive Processes: Heuristics and

Automaticity

Social Information• schemas

– what are schemas– what do they do for us– some problems with schemas

Social Information• two pieces to the puzzle

– content: what we think about– process: how we think about it

Making Inferences• four phases of inference processes

(Fiske, 2004)

– 1. data collection• Example: previous serious relationship

predicts marital success• What data do we need? (Nisbett & Ross, 1980)

– married, previous relationship– divorced, no previous relationship– married, no previous relationship– divorced, previous relationship

Making Inferences• four phases of inference processes

(Fiske, 2004)

– 2. sampling• only friends and people you know or a

larger sample?• pay attention to base rates

Making Inferences• four phases of inference processes

(Fiske, 2004)

– 3. coding• separation: divorce or ongoing marriage?• tend to be misled by extreme values (i.e.,

outliers)– e.g., a person married and divorced six times

Making Inferences• four phases of inference processes

(Fiske, 2004)

– 4. combining data•diagnostic (e.g., previous marriages) vs.

non-diagnostic (e.g., hobbies, profession) information

• improper weighting of information

Processing Social Information

• two different social goals – need to be accurate– need to be decisive

Processing Social Information

• two different social goals – need to be accurate– need to be decisive

• heuristics: simple decision rules for processing information and making decisions (i.e., rules of thumb)

Heuristics• look at your answers to the first

problem– homicide (7.9) vs. diabetes (23.3)– digestive system cancer (47.7) vs. motor

vehicle accidents (16.5)– strokes (60.3) vs. all accidents (35.8)– all cancers (211.4) vs. heart disease (276.4)

(rates are per 100,000 people; 1996)

Heuristics• availability heuristic: a

judgment based on the ease with which they can bring something to mind

• “If I can think of it, it must be important.”

Heuristics• availability heuristic

– heart disease: 3 vs. 8 risk factors– Who feels more at risk for heart

disease?

(Rothman & Schwarz, 1998)

Heuristics• look at your answers to the second

problem– a. Linda is a bank teller.– b. Linda is a bank teller and active in

the feminist movement.

Heuristics• representative heuristic: a

judgment based on an object’s (i.e., person, thing) resemblance to a particular category– the more similar the object is to a

category, the more likely it is to be a member of that category

Heuristics• representative heuristic

– ignore the base rate information– but, it is often a useful heuristic

Heuristics• look at your answers to the third

problem– Who is more upset? Mr. Crane or Mr.

Tees?

Heuristics• simulation heuristic: mentally

changing some aspect of the past as a way of imagining what might have been– the easier it is to imagine how things

might have been otherwise, the more tragic it seems

Heuristics• simulation heuristic

– examined tapes of 41 athletes from ‘92 Games

– judges rated athletes on scales from “agony” to “ecstasy”

– bronze medalists happier than silver medalists

(Medvec, Madey, & Gilovich, 1995)

Heuristics• simulation heuristic

– people mentally undo action easier than inaction (Kahneman & Miller, 1986)• e.g., feel worse about saying something

inappropriate than failing to say something appropriate

Heuristics• look at your answer to the fourth

problem– Program A or Program B?

Heuristics• framing effect: how we process

information depends on how the information is presented (or framed)– gains: likely to be risk-averse– losses: likely to be risk-seeking

Heuristics• anchoring-and-adjustment

heuristic: in estimating numerical values (e.g., frequencies, probabilities), people use a starting point and adjust up or down– e.g., murder trials: first consider most

or least severe punishment (Greenberg, Williams, O’Brien, 1986)

Automatic or Controlled?• “Thinking is for doing.” (Fiske, 1992)

– social cognition is practical– social interaction goals influence the

degree of automaticity or control• decisive or accurate?

Automaticity• preconscious automaticity:

mental action that occurs outside of one’s conscious awareness– gold standard of automatic processes– subliminal priming affects liking

(Murphy, Monahan, & Zajonc, 1995)

Automaticity

-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.60.8

1

]

PositiveNo PrimeNegative

0 1 3

Number of Exposures

Liki

ng R

atin

gs

(Murphy, Monahan, & Zajonc, 1995)

Automaticity• postconscious automaticity: the

stimulus eliciting an effect is fully conscious, but its influence is not

Automaticity• postconscious automaticity

– postconscious priming• What kind of person is Donald? (Higgins,

Rholes, & Jones, 1977)

Automaticity• postconscious automaticity

– postconscious priming– mood effects (e.g., Forgas, 1998)

• students in library found pictures in an envelope

• humorous cartoons or car accidents• stranger approached and requested some

paper• negative mood: more likely to resist the

request

Automaticity• postconscious automaticity

– postconscious priming– mood effects (e.g., Forgas, 1998)

– salience effects (e.g., Taylor & Fiske, 1975)• Who is more important to the tone and

content of the conversation?

Automaticity

(Taylor & Fiske, 1975)

Controlled Responses• fully intentional control

– to exercise intent, a person must• a) have options• b) make the hard choice (i.e., the non-

dominant alternative)• c) pay attention

(Fiske, 1989)

Controlled Responses• fully intentional control

– getting out of bed on a cold, dark morning• a) get up or stay put• b) make the choice to get up• c) thinking about what was has to get

done

Dealing with Limitations• ways to become better thinkers

– statistical reasoning• e.g., pay attention to the base rates

– law of large numbers• a large sample size is better (i.e., more

accurate)– be critical consumers of information

Summary• processing social information is

flawed• two goals: accuracy and decisiveness• heuristics are adaptive but flawed• most of our mental processing is

automatic• ways of improving the process

Next Time• How do we think about other

people and their behavior?