Schemas
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Aronson, Wilson & Akert (2007) define schemas as mental structures that people use to organize their knowledge about the social world around them. Furthermore they state that schemas influence the information people notice, think about and remember. In much simpler terms, schemas are networks of associations used by the individual to organize and process information (Aronson & Reilly, 2006). Stereotypes that we attribute to certain ethnic groups are considered a schema of sorts. A concrete example of the use of stereotypes as schemas is the common belief that people of African heritage are generally good at sports. . Rather than consider each interracial interaction independently and thoroughly, we are likely to use schemas to explain behavior of that said group.
Child development theorist Piaget argues that from an early age a child seeks to understand their world, in order to do so their developing brain creates what he called schemes (Santrock, 2008). He describes them as mental representations that organize knowledge. According to Piaget, humans develop schemas at all ages of life. The young infant develops a schema of sucking, looking or grabbing, whereas older children’s schemas are multi-layered and include problem-solving mental constructs. Piaget argues that by the time the infant reaches adulthood their schemas are elaborate, diverse and allow for a wide range of capabilities (Santrock, 2008).
Schemas can be sub-divided into several categories. Self-schemas help people organize thoughts and information about themselves as individuals (Aronson & Reilley, 2006). In research done by Aronson and Reilley (2006) they show how self-schemas can lead individuals to use selective memory to retrieve only that information which is schema consistent. Another type of schema is gender schema. These are schemas that help us organize the world into either female or male categories. (Santrock, 2008). Gender schema theory proposes that an individual’s attention and behavior are guided by an internal motivation to conform to gender based socio-cultural standards and stereotypes (Santrock, 2008).
Aronson et al. (2006) argue that schemas are part of our automatic thinking and are used as mental shortcuts. Because the brain is constantly trying to conserve energy, schemas are a way to help us fill in the gaps of information that we lack about a situation or a person. When this process of filling in the gaps is used in getting to know someone, it is called implicit personality theory (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2006). Specifically when we assume that certain personality traits go together we are employing Implicit Personality Theory.
Another reason that we use schemas is because it helps us reduce ambiguity and they serve as memory guides (Aronson et. al, 2006). When the information we have about a situation is limited, we recall situation specific schema to help us sort through the ambiguity. When we can not recall exact information from our past, schemas help us conjure up a less hazy picture. An example given by Aronson (2006) is people recalling famous lines from movies which in actuality where never said. This suggests that as time progresses our schemas get stronger and more rooted.
Which schemas we choose to use depends on two important factors discussed by Aronson, Wilson and Akert (2006): accessibility and priming. Accessibilty refers to how available our schemas are to us and thus more likely to be used to explain our social world. Whereas priming refers to the process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema, trait or concept.
Another important concept regarding schemas is the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies. This concept postulates that when people have a certain expectation of another person, they will treat that person in a schema consistent way. This in turn causes the person being observed to live up to those expectations confirming the schema of the observer.
Example – Research
As a concrete example on the use of self-schemas and how they affect behavior, Aronson & Reilley (2006) conducted a research study investigating how self-schemas work in job applicants. They hypothesized that the validities of self-ratings of conscientiousness and openness taken under neutral conditions will be higher than the validities of self-ratings obtained under job description conditions. They chose the personality traits of openness and conscientiousness specifically because they believed that participants would concur that these are desirable traits to have for the job to which they were applying.
Approximately 300 students were recruited from various technological colleges on the East coast of the United States and offered extra credit to participate in the study. Each participant took a personality test establishing their self-rating under three different conditions: a neutral condition, a condition under openness and a condition under conscientiousness. The personality trait being sought (openness or conscientiousness) was manipulated in two separate conditions where a shift in self-perception should be apparent. Job criteria was changed to elicit the desirable trait, for example if the trait of conscientiousness was being sought, the job description would call for someone who is “careful and accurate.” Two tasks served as criteria; clerical task and a “think tank” task. In the clerical task the participant was asked to separate letter runs. For example in the letter run of kkkpss, the applicant would have to separate the number of each letter from each other. The correct answer to the stated letter run would be 3 k’s 1 p and 2 s’. The number of letter runs successfully separated in a 20 minute period operationally defined their conscientiousness score. To measure the openness score, participants were asked to list consequences to an unusual event. Their responses were rated either as obvious or novel by two different raters. The higher rate of novel responses operationally defined their openness score.
Analysis of all scores across all three conditions supported both hypothesis and showed a significant relationship with self-ratings shifts to reflect each desired trait. The authors argue this is because applying for a job creates what they call motivated reasoning which in turn can lead to job applicants adopting self-schemas and using that schema in a way that does not accurately reflect their natural behavior or talents.
Possible implications of this study vary. The idea of motivated reasoning and how our schemas play into them is not limited to the work force. There are many areas of life where an individual can play up their self-perceived traits when they feel they are being specifically desired. It is not uncommon for people to do this on dates when getting to know someone.
Example - Real-Life
In news story on CNN titled “How to stop false confessions such as in the Central Park jogger case” (Cassel 2002), there is an unfortunate example of how our schemas can have negative repercussions. As discussed earlier stereotypes are a type of schema that we use about certain ethnic groups. In the case of the Central Park rape, five teenage boys were wrongly convicted of brutally raping a woman. While there are many questions surrounding these wrongful convictions one factor that can’t be ignored is that the boys convicted where African-American and the victim was white. As the author argues, the race card alone might have trumped the search for the truth.
At the time of the incident, in the late 80’s, New York City streets were ridden with crime that made the public scared and ultra cautious. This kind of pressure placed on the police force made them more susceptible to societal schemas of African-Americans and violence. The fact that the victim was white further fueled the fire. As discussed earlier in this paper, the longer a schema has been in place, the more resistant to change it will become. It could be argued that schemas about crimes committed by African –American towards white have been in existence since the birth of our nation. It was in this past century not long ago that crimes committed against whites held much steeper penalties than those committed against blacks. This societal attitude and fears of African-Americans has long been instilled as a cultural schema. Such was the case with this highly publicized case of the Central Park Jogger. “The idea of a roving gang of black boys brutally beating and raping a white woman fit the schema of the public’s fear of African-Americans and of teenage gangs.”
As we can infer from our newfound knowledge of schemas, they can be either beneficial or damaging. It is important to examine the schemas we hold, where they are founded and how factual they are. While they are helpful in ambiguous situations, or in helping us conserve energy, they can be harmful when they are ill placed or used.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R. (2006). Social psychology (6th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aronson, Z.H. & Reilly, R. R. (2006). Personality validity: The role of schemas and motivated reasoning. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14 (4) 372-380.
Cassel, E. (2002). How to stop false confessions such as in the Central Park jogger case. Retrieved November 15, 2009 from cnn.com: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/17/findlaw.analysis.centralpark.jogger/index.html
Edworthy, Z., Chasey, R., Williams, H. (2008). The role of schema and appraisals in the development of post-traumatic stress symptoms following birth. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psycholgy 26 (2) 123-138.
Lawson, R., Emanuelli, F., Sines, J. & Waller G. (2008). Emotional awareness and core beliefs among women with eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 16, 155-59.
Santrock, J.(2008). Life-span development (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
◄ Back to Fall 2009 PSY 322 Assignment page
