UNIT II

PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION

(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

SOCIAL SCHEMAS
A social schema is a knowledge structure that helps individuals to select and process information
about their social environment. It is not only an organized cognitive structure, but also a way of
thinking for accepting, explaining, memorizing, and exporting social information.

Schemas are defined as the mental frameworks around a specific theme that help us in
organizing social information and guiding the processing of such information (Baron, Byrne and
Branscombe, 2006)

Schemas are established on the basis of previous experience, cultural and social norms or perceived
understanding and provide a good framework for organizing, interpreting and processing social
information. Once schemas are established, they help us in interpreting new situations and in
guiding our behavior.
Fiske and Taylor (1991) had classified schema into four major types- self-schemas, person
schema, role schema and event schema. All these four types of schemas serve vital functions in
processing, organizing and using social information. A brief description of these types is as
follows:

1. Self-schemas: cognitive generalizations about the self-based upon the experiences of

the past. In fact, self-schemas are the structures that tend to organize our conception of
our own characteristics (Markus, 1977).
Self-schemas form the cognitive component of the self-concepts and are organized
around the specific traits or features (called schematic traits), which we generally think
of as most central to our self- image.

For example, if a person thinks about the self as being independent one (opposed to
dependent one), he may see himself as assertive and individualistic one.

2. Person schemas: The mental structures, which represent knowledge about the traits of
specific personalities (such as Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President Bill
Clinton, etc.) or the types of individuals (such as introvert, psychopath, manic-
depressive, extrovert, etc.).
Person schema organizes the person's conception of others' personalities and enable
him to develop expectations about others' behavior.
3. Role schemas: Role schemas are defined in terms of various attributes and behaviors,
which are typical of the persons who occupy a particular role in the society. In other
words, role schemas indicate which behaviors and attributes are typical of persons
occupying a particular position or role in the group
Examples are various occupational roles such as those of a bank manager, a team
captain, a nurse, etc.

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

4. Event schemas: Event schemas are defined as the mental frameworks which relate to
some specific events or situations. In other words, event schemas are the schemas
regarding important recurring events of our society (Hue and Erickson, 1991).
Event schemas are scripts, which indicate what is expected to happen in a given
situation (Abelson, 1981). These scripts or event schemas help us in anticipating how
to behave in the given situation. In our society, we have event schemas for wedding,
birthday party, funerals and eating at restaurant.
For example, event schema for wedding helps us in deciding what type of dress we
should put on, how we should interact with groom and bridegroom, what and how we
should eat, etc.

Besides these four types of schemas enunciated by Fiske and Taylor (1991), some other social
psychologists also added one more schema called group schema (Fiske, 1995; Taylor and Crocker,
1981).

Group schemas, also known as stereotypes, are defined as the schemas regarding the
members of a particular social group or category. Stereotypes, in fact, tend to indicate
such attributes or behaviors, which are typical of members of that group or category. In
Indian culture, wide varieties of stereotypes are used about different social groups or
categories.
For example, females are religious- minded and of low intelligence; husbands are like
God for wives, teachers are idealistic and politicians are opportunistic.

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

HEURISTICS
A heuristic refers to a mental shortcut or rule of thumb that people use to make judgments or
decisions quickly and efficiently, especially when dealing with complex social situations or
incomplete information.

Heuristics allow individuals to simplify the cognitive process of decision-making by

relying on past experiences or general principles, often without extensive thought or analysis.
While they can be helpful in speeding up decision-making, they may also lead to biases or errors
in judgment. Heuristics tend to simplify our lives and usually gives right conclusion but sometimes
they lead to errors. Some of the types include:

1. Availability Heuristic. This heuristic involves judging the probability or frequency of an

event based on how easily examples or instances come to mind. If something is more
readily recalled (e.g., due to recent media coverage), people tend to overestimate its
frequency or likelihood.

It suggests that the easier it is to bring information to mind, the greater its impact
on subsequent decisions or judgments. In some cases, availability may also involve the
amount of information we bring to mind. We tend to apply the ease of retrieval rule to
judgments about ourselves more than to judgments about others.

Example: After hearing about a plane crash in the news, people may overestimate the risk
of flying, even though statistically, it is very safe.

2. Representativeness Heuristic. People use this heuristic to judge the likelihood of an

event based on how similar it is to a prototype or typical example. If something closely
resembles a category, individuals are more likely to assume it belongs to that category, even
if the likelihood is low.
It suggests that the more similar an individual or subgroup of people is to typical
members of a given group—the group’s prototype—the more likely they will be seen as
belonging to that group.

Example: If someone is described as quiet and bookish, people may assume they are a
librarian, even though there are far more engineers than librarians.

3. Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic. People start with an initial reference point (the
"anchor") and make adjustments from there when making judgments. The anchor often
influences decisions even when it is irrelevant or arbitrary.
It leads us to use a number or value (known as anchor) as a starting point from
which we then make adjustments. These adjustments may not be sufficient to reflect actual
social reality; perhaps because once we attain a plausible value, we stop the process.

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

Example: If a person first sees a shirt priced at 10000 and then a second shirt priced at
5000, they may perceive the second shirt as a better deal, even though 5000 is still
expensive.

4. Affect Heuristic. This involves making decisions based on emotions or feelings rather than
objective analysis. People's emotional reactions to a situation or object often guide their
judgments and choices.

Example: People may decide to avoid a product because it gives them a negative emotional
reaction, even if there is no factual basis for the decision.

ATTRIBUTION: TYPES AND THEORIES

Attribution refers to the process by which individuals explain the causes of behavior and events.
It involves determining whether a person’s actions are due to internal factors (such as personality,
abilities, or effort) or external factors (such as situational influences, luck, or the actions of others).

Example: When you get a poor grade on a quiz, you might blame the teacher for not
adequately explaining the material, completely dismissing the fact that you didn't study.

OR when a classmate gets a better grade on the same quiz, you might attribute his good
performance to luck, neglecting the fact that he has excellent study habits.

The main types of attributions we may use in daily life include:

1. Interpersonal Attribution. When telling a story to a group of friends or acquaintances,

you are likely to tell the story in a way that places you in the best possible light.

2. Predictive Attribution. We also tend to attribute things in ways that allow us to make

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

future predictions. When a vehicle is damaged, person might attribute the crime to the fact that
you parked in a particular private parking. As a result, person will avoid that private parking in the
future in order to avoid further damaged.

3. Explanatory Attribution. We use explanatory attributions to help us make sense of the

world around us. Some people have an optimistic explanatory style, while others tend to be more
pessimistic.

People with an optimistic style attribute positive events to stable, internal, and global
causes and negative events to unstable, external, and specific causes. Those with a pessimistic
style attribute negative events to internal, stable, and global causes and positive events to external,
stable, and specific causes.

Further, Attribution is divided into internal and external attribution, stable and unstable
(REFER- Heider’s theory)

Internal Attribution or dispositional attribution, refers to the process of assigning the cause
of behavior to some internal characteristic, likeability and motivation, rather than to outside forces.
This concept has overlap with the Locus of control, in which individuals feel they are personally
responsible for everything that happens to them.

Example: A child attributes the weather to their feelings; it is raining outside because the
child is feeling sad.

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

External attributions, also called situational attribution. It refers to interpreting someone's

behavior as being caused by the individual's environment.

For example, if one's car tire is punctured, it may be attributed to a hole in the road; by
making attributions to the poor condition of the highway, one can make sense of the event without
any discomfort that it may in reality have been the result of their own bad driving.

Individuals are more likely to associate unfortunate events with external factors than with
internal factors. Example: A child attributes their feelings to the weather outside their house; The
child feels sad because it is raining outside.

Stable Attribution, people infer that an event or behavior is due to stable, unchanging factors.
Example: Suresh gets a grade ‘D’ on his social Psychology semester paper. If he attributes
the grade to the fact that he always has bad luck, he is making a stable attribution.

Unstable Attribution, people infer that an event or behaviors is due to unstable, temporary
factors. Example: Suresh gets a grade ‘D’ on his social Psychology semester paper. If he attributes
the grade to the fact that he didn’t have much time to study that week, he is making an unstable
attribution.

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

Attribution bias refers to systematic errors in the way people explain the causes of behavior,
often favoring certain types of explanations over others. These biases can distort our perception of
reality and influence social interactions. Some common types of attribution biases include:

1. Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) – The tendency to overemphasize internal

(dispositional) factors and underestimate external (situational) factors when explaining
others’ behavior. Example: Assuming someone is rude because of their personality rather
than considering that they might be having a bad day.

2. Self-Serving Bias – The tendency to attribute one’s own successes to internal factors (e.g.,
ability, effort) and failures to external factors (e.g., luck, unfair circumstances). Example:
A student who gets an A on a test credit their intelligence, but if they fail, they blame the
teacher’s poor instruction.

3. Actor-Observer Bias – The tendency to attribute one’s own behavior to situational factors
while attributing others’ behavior to internal traits. Example: If you are late, you blame
traffic, but if someone else is late, you assume they are irresponsible.
4. Hostile Attribution Bias – The tendency to interpret others’ ambiguous actions as having
hostile intent. Example: Thinking someone bumped into you on purpose rather than by
accident.

5. False Consensus Effect – The belief that others share our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
more than they actually do. Example: Assuming most people agree with your political
views when, in reality, opinions are divided.

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

6. Just-World Hypothesis – The belief that the world is fair and people get what they
deserve. Example: Assuming that a victim of misfortune must have done something to
deserve it.

ATTRIBUTION THEORIES

Heider’s Attribution Theory (1958)

Fritz Heider, an Austrian psychologist, developed Attribution Theory in 1958 to explain how
people interpret and assign causes to events and behaviors. He argued that people are naturally
inclined to understand the reasons behind actions to make sense of their social world.

Key Concepts of Heider’s Attribution Theory

1. Internal (Dispositional) Attribution – When behavior is attributed to personal
characteristics, such as personality, abilities, effort, or emotions. Example: If someone
performs well on a test, an internal attribution would be that they are intelligent or
hardworking.

2. External (Situational) Attribution – When behavior is attributed to external factors, such

as luck, social pressure, environmental conditions, or other people’s actions. Example: If
someone is late to work, an external attribution would be that there was heavy traffic.

 Heider suggested that individuals act like "naïve psychologists,"

constantly trying to figure out why things happen. They seek to find stability
in their environment by making cause-and-effect judgments.
 People prefer stable, predictable explanations for behavior, which is why
they often look for consistent causes behind actions.
 Heider believed that people balance personal (internal) and situational
(external) attributions based on their perceptions and available information.

Kelley’s Covariation Model (1967)

Harold Kelley’s Covariation Model (1967) is an extension of Heider’s Attribution Theory. It
explains how people determine whether to attribute a person’s behavior to internal (personal) or
external (situational) causes by assessing three key factors: consistency, consensus, and
distinctiveness.

Three Key Factors in the Covariation Model

1. Consistency – Does the person behave the same way in similar situations over time? High
consistency: The behavior occurs repeatedly in the same situation → Suggests an internal

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)

 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

cause. Low consistency: The behavior is unusual or infrequent → Suggests an external

cause.

Example: If a student is always late to class, their lateness has high consistency (it happens
regularly).

2. Consensus – Do other people behave the same way in the same situation? High consensus:
Many people behave similarly → Suggests an external cause. Low consensus: Few people
behave that way → Suggests an internal cause.

Example: If most students are late to class, there is high consensus (likely an external cause
like traffic).

3. Distinctiveness – Does the person behave differently in other situations? High

distinctiveness: The behavior is unique to this specific situation → Suggests an external
cause. Low distinctiveness: The behavior occurs across different situations → Suggests an
internal cause.

Example: If a student is late only to this class but punctual in others, their lateness has high
distinctiveness (likely an external factor, like a scheduling issue).

Attribution Outcomes Based on the Covariation Model

High/Low Factors Attribution Type

High consistency, low consensus, low Internal Attribution (Behavior is due to the person’s traits
distinctiveness or choices)

High consistency, high consensus,

External Attribution (Behavior is caused by the situation)
high distinctiveness

Unclear or Situational Attribution (Behavior might be

Low consistency
random or due to temporary factors)

Weiner’s Attribution Theory

Weiner and colleagues (e.g., Jones et al, 1972; Weiner, 1974, 1986) developed a theoretical
framework that has become a major research paradigm of social psychology. Attribution theory
assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, i.e., attribute causes to behavior.
A person seeking to understand why another person did something may attribute one or more
causes to that behavior. A three-stage process underlies an attribution:

(1) the person must perceive or observe the behavior,

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)
 UNIT II
PERSON PERCEPTION & SOCIAL COGNITION
(BASICS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)

(2) then the person must believe that the behaviour was intentionally performed, and
(3) then the person must determine if they believe the other person was forced to perform the

behaviour (in which case the cause is attributed to the situation) or not (in which case the cause

is attributed to the other person).

Weiner focused his attribution theory on achievement (Weiner, 1974). He identified ability,

• effort, task difficulty, and luck as the most important factors affecting attributions for
achievement.

Attributions are classified along three causal dimensions:

1. locus of control,

2. stability, and

3. controllability.

 The locus of control dimension has two poles:

• internal versus
• external locus of control.
 The Stability dimension captures whether causes change over time or not. For instance, •
ability can be classified as a stable, internal cause, and effort classified as unstable and
internal.
 Controllability contrasts cause one can control, such as skill/efficacy, from causes one
cannot control, such as aptitude, mood, others’ actions, and luck

Examples of Attribution Using Weiner’s theory

Locus of
Situation Stability Controllability Example Attribution
Control

Winning a race Internal Stable Controllable "I am a naturally fast runner."

Failing a test Internal Unstable Controllable "I didn’t study enough this time."

Losing a soccer "The opposing team is always

External Stable Uncontrollable
game stronger."

Getting a
External Unstable Uncontrollable "I got lucky this time."
promotion

Kanak Yadav (SRCASW)