Research Report Constituent inhibition in surprising ... · PDF fileREFERENCE No. 14 Research...

REFERENCE No.

14

Research Report

Constituent inhibition in surprising social combinations

ESRC grant: RES-000-22-1596 Hutter, Crisp, & Humphreys

BACKGROUND

Six studies set out to discover exactly how perceivers cognitively represent congruent social category combinations, e.g. ‘Female nurse’ versus incongruent combinations, e.g. ‘Female mechanic’. Specifically, it was predicted that when sex-categorizing combinations, perceivers would find it easier to categorize congruent combinations compared to incongruent combinations. In order to do this we expected executive resources to be involved in the categorization of incongruent combinations. Indeed executive resources have previously been linked to resolving inconsistency (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Schloerscheidt, & Milne, 1999). Thus it was expected that in order to correctly sex categorize, for example, a ‘Female mechanic’ perceivers executive resources would be involved in the inhibition of the conflicting ‘mechanic’ category. However for congruent combinations, a facilitation effect was expected when sex categorizing, whereby perceivers would be quicker to categorize the target as female when judging a Female nurse. This was done by testing for the selective effects of category combination type on sex categorization using a dual task methodology. Weundertook this through presenting categories at both at the superordinate categorical and supraordinate attribute levels. If, as the proposed research hypothesised, executive resources are involved in the inhibition of the conflicting occupational constituent in surprising sex-occupation combinations then stroop-like measures tapping the inhibitory component of executive function would be expected specifically to interfere with this process (Stroop, 1935). For example this could involve verbalizing a conflicting occupational attribute whilst sex categorizing via key press on a computer keyboard.

Category combination

Kunda, Miller, and Claire (1990) suggest that emergent attributes (attributes that are ascribed to category combinations but not to either of the constituent categories respectively) are more likely to be observed when surprising social category combinations are encountered by perceivers (see also Hastie et al., 1990). Using as their example a 'Harvard educated carpenter', Kunda et al. (1990) found some evidence that a surprising combination of category memberships can result in the generation of emergent attributes. Thus, ‘non-materialistic’ may be an attribute used to describe a Harvard educated carpenter, but is absent when forming an impression of either someone described simply as ‘Harvard educated’ or as a ‘carpenter’. In other words, there is a poor fit between the constituents from the perceiver’s perspective and emergent attributes are used to fit the categories together in a perceptually meaningful manner (Wilkenfied & Ward, 2001). Indeed, Uleman, Newman, and Moskowitz’s (1996) review of trait inference research suggests that when impressions are not already available from memory, they will be constructed in a spontaneous manner. This suggests that for incongruent (conflicting) combinations impressions will be constructed in a way that draws not so much on stereotypical information from the constituents, but instead on non-stereotypic emergent attributes.

To cite this output: Hutter, Russell (2007). Constituent inhibition in surprising social combinations: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-1596. Swindon: ESRC

REFERENCE No.

15

Causal reasoning

Kunda et al. (1990) suggest that in order to resolve the inconsistency for incongruent combinations, representations are constructed 'on line' via a causal reasoning process rather than the usual process of retrieving stored categorical information from memory (which would occur when combinations are unsurprising). With respect to Kunda et al.’s Harvard educated carpenter, a perceiver may thus reason that this person turned to carpentry because the culture of the 1960’s inspired disillusionment with ideas of materialism and competition. This process of causal reasoning when considering unfamiliar, surprising and incongruent category combinations can thus lead to the emergence of attributes not stored as the stereotypic representation of either of the constituent categories. Whilst a Harvard educated carpenter may be perceived as possessing some of the characteristics of being Harvard educated (e.g. intelligent and financially secure) as well as some of those associated with carpenters, (e.g., skilful and rugged) it may also be concluded that they possess other characteristics resulting from the causal reasoning process such as ‘non materialistic’, which are used to solve the puzzle of membership of the two conflicting categories.

Constituent disinheritance

Kunda et al. (1990) investigated the proposed role of causal reasoning when social stereotypes are combined by analyzing narratives of participants who had been presented with incongruent social category combinations. They observed that emergent attributes, independent from the constituents, appeared to be present when the incongruent constituents were brought together. More recently, Hutter and Crisp (2005a; see also Hutter, 2005) have confirmed the emergence of novel attributes when participants consider surprising social category combinations, but also illustrated more clearly a second, potentially complimentary process hinted at by the early studies of Kunda and Hastie -- an apparent constituent ‘disinheritance’.

Whilst innovative, research on the composition of category conjunctions has remained largely dormant since the work described above (with the exception of our work, e.g. Hutter & Crisp, 2005a), and a number of important questions remain unresolved. Critically, investigations of surprising category combination have rarely included an unsurprising comparison group, but this is essential for ascertaining whether different processes apply as a function of the combination type. Perhaps more importantly, previous work on category combination has mainly focussed on the generation of new ‘emergent’ attributes. However, equally important (if not more so) is consideration of ‘constituent disinheritance’, that is: To what extent are constituent attributes selectively disinherited or inhibited (if at all) from the combination?

Another issue from previous work relates to the cognitive processes that lead to the emergence of novel attributes, and proposed inhibition of constituent attributes. Inconsistency resolution occurs when a perceiver encounters any perceptual incongruency (Hastie, 1981; Srull & Wyer, 1989). The process entails at first a search in memory for the inconsistent material and then, if the process is unsuccessful, the instigation of a causal reasoning process. This, according to Kunda et al. (1990), occurs when incongruent social category combinations are encountered by perceivers. This hypothesis has, however, never been tested using established moderators of the inconsistency resolution processes. Some preliminary work has shown that when cognitive resources are restricted there is a decrease in the observation of emergent


REFERENCE No.

16

attributes, which are assumed to result from an effortful inconsistency resolution process (Hutter & Crisp, 2006). As such, it seems that emergent attribute generation resulting from surprising category combination has aspects in common with a well-established model of working memory, in that executive resources are necessary (Baddeley, 1996). However, we do not know the precise nature of this process.

We would also argue that it is not enough to ascertain that cognitive resources are required; we must also establish the nature of the resources applied in inconsistency resolution. Our preliminary work (Hutter & Crisp, 2006) has shown that cognitive resources may be required when dealing with surprising category combinations, but what remains unclear is the precise nature of this resource requirement.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research was to specify exactly what types of executive resources are involved in category combination. This was done by testing for the selective effects of dual task interference on sex categorization tasks. If, as we originally proposed, executive resources are required to inhibit the stereotypical constituents in surprising combinations, then measures tapping the inhibitory component of executive function (for example Stroop-like tasks) would be expected specifically to interfere with this process. This was tested In Study 1a with visually congruent or incongruent combinations (scenes with males and females in congruent or incongruent occupations).In Study 1b pre-tested Male and Female faces were each paired on screen with a semantically presented occupation that was either stereotypically incongruent (surprising), stereotypically congruent (unsurprising) with the sex of the target, or stereotypically neutral (control). In Study 2, subliminal tool primes that were congruent or incongruent with the sex of the face were presented. The same visually congruent or incongruent combinations from Study 1 were used again in Study 3. However this time the participants undertook a secondary task that tapped either executive, articulatory suppression, or no load, in line with Baddeley’s working memory model (Baddeley, 1996). The faces used in Studies 1b and 2 were again used in Study 4a. Participants were required to vocalize occupational attributes that were congruent or incongruent with the sex of the face on screen. Finally in Study 4b the same occupational attributes from Study 4a were presented again, but this time implicitly (using a subliminal methodology) to reduce any possibility that the effects observed in Study 1 are due to demand characteristics.

PILOT WORK

Pilot 1Before examining the effects of visually congruent or incongruent social category

combinations on the impression formation process in Studies 1a and 3 there was a need to empirically obtain a number of appropriate category combinations. Thus this pilot study set out to pre-test 45 category combination pictures for surprise, familiarity, sex typicality, attractiveness, and occupational typicality. The congruent combinations were: female housewife; female nurse; female operator; male mechanic; male soldier, and male vicar. The incongruent combinations were: male housewife; male nurse; male operator; female mechanic; female soldier, and female vicar. The pictures consisted of females and male dressed in occupational outfits obtained through a Google image search.

Ten participants using Likert scales rated the 46 category combinations in E-Prime on the following measures: surprise, familiarity, sex typicality, attractiveness, and occupational typicality Following the removal of 21 pictures that scored 2.5 and below and 5.7 and above for attractiveness. The remaining 24 pictures were collapsed to give


REFERENCE No.

17

12 category combinations (6 congruent vs. 6 incongruent) with 2 exemplars for each combination. Each congruent category combination was then compared with its relevant incongruent combination to ensure that they did not differ for attractiveness.

A one way ANOVA showed that the combinations differed significantly for attractiveness F (11, 239) = 3.164, p < .001. Post hoc comparisons showed that as expected the female housekeepers were not perceived as more attractive than the male housekeepers, p = .271. The female mechanics were not perceived as more attractive than the male mechanics, p = .836. The female nurses were not perceived as more attractive than the male nurses, p = .191. The female operators were not perceived as any more attractive than the male operators, p = .630. The female soldiers were not perceived as more attractive than the male soldiers, p = .890. The female vicars were not perceived as more attractive than the male vicars, p = .783. These findings confirmed that the relevant comparison combinations did not differ in their level of perceived attractiveness. Thus these combinations were used for the main studies.

Pilot 2 Pilot 2 was conducted to ensure that the faces required for Studies 1b, 2, 4a, and

4b were equally rated for attractiveness, to avoid any possible confound in response time to the pictures. Twenty-five participants were recruited via research advertisements at the University of Birmingham (N=14) and the University of Reading (N=11) and were paid for their participation. Participants were presented with 34 pictures of male and female faces presented alternately on a computer screen, which were obtained from the Psychological Image Collection at Stirling (http://pics.psych.stir.ac.uk/). Participants rated each picture for typicality of their sex and attractiveness. To ensure that ratings were not unduly influenced by temporal or order effects half of the participants were presented with the pictures in reverse order. Male and female photos were matched into pairs based on their mean attractiveness rating based on a visual analysis of the means, resulting in 17 pairs. A paired samples t-test was then conducted on the data, which revealed 14 pairs of pictures, which were not significantly different on attractiveness ratings (p>.2).

Pilot 3Before examining the effects of congruent or incongruent combinations on the

impression formation process in Study 1b, there was a need to empirically obtain a number of appropriate occupations associated with our male and female targets (e.g. Housekeeper; Secretary; Mechanic; and Bricklayer). Thus this pilot study set out to pre-test a total of 43 occupations across both male and female sex combinations, for both surprise and familiarity. Twelve participants therefore rated the total 86 category combinations on two measures: surprise and familiarity. Each congruent combination (e.g. Male Plumber) was then compared with its relevant incongruent combination (e.g. Female Plumber) to ensure that the pairs were significantly different from each other in terms of both perceived familiarity and surprise. Of the 43 occupations, 14 were selected to be paired with the male and female faces from Pilot 2, thereby serving as sex-occupation combinations in the present research. Seven of these were stereotypically female, and seven stereotypically male. They were selected on the basis that, following a series of paired-sample t-tests, the female combination differed significantly from the male combination on both surprise and familiarity measures (all p<.001). So, for example, female bricklayers were perceived as significantly more surprising, and significantly less familiar than male bricklayers. The matched paired faces from Pilot 2 (faces) were then each assigned an occupation. For example, a male and female face that were shown not to differ significantly for attractiveness in Pilot 1 were assigned the


REFERENCE No.

18

occupation ‘Housekeeper’, whilst another pair were assigned ‘Mechanic’. This reduced the possibility of attractiveness confounding attention time in the main Study across the face-occupation pairings.

Pilot 4We needed to obtain a number of occupations, which could be presented

alongside target combinations (as neutral or control items in Study 1b) in order to disguise the experimental hypotheses and to demonstrate facilitation and inhibition fully. It was therefore important to ensure these occupations were neutral with respect to their association with male and female sex combinations. Twelve participants rated a total of 36 occupations for both male and female targets on the same two measures of surprise and familiarity as Pilot 3. However, in this case the aim was to select the occupations which did not differ significantly on these two measures across male and female combinations: Following a series of paired-sample t-tests 14 occupations were selected to serve as fillers, e.g. Presenter, Pharmacist, Chiropodist etc (all p>.05). Each was then assigned to one of 14 (7 male, 7 female) additional faces selected from The IMM Face Database, Technical University of Denmark (http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/~aam/)1.

METHODSStudy 1a

The aim of Study 1a was to test the hypothesis that categorizing surprising sex combinations involves the inhibition of constituent categories. We predicted that this would manifest itself in longer processing times. For example, when asked to sex categorize a scene involving the combination ‘female vicar’, in order to make the correct response perceivers will inhibit the ‘vicar’ constituent because this is associated with the ‘male’ category. If this is so, longer response times for surprising sex category combinations should be observed relative to unsurprising combinations. In contrast, when sex categorizing scenes involving more unsurprising combinations, for example ‘male vicar’, perceivers will have no need to inhibit the occupation constituent, i.e. ‘vicar’, because this is associated with the ‘male’ category resulting in facilitation.

To test this forty-three undergraduate participants at the University of Birmingham took part in a 2 (sex of target: female vs. male) x 2 (combination valence: congruent vs. incongruent) within-subjects design. Participants determined the sex of an on screen target as quickly and accurately as possible. Participants were shown a total of 24 stimuli in a random order comprised of visually congruent or incongruent combinations (6 males in congruent occupations, 6 males in incongruent occupations 6 females in congruent occupations, 6 females in incongruent occupations). The photos appeared on screen until the participant responded. Response times were taken as the dependent measure. We expected analyses to reveal that perceivers would take longer to sex categorize females in incongruent occupations over congruent occupation. The same pattern was expected for the male combinations.

Study 1b The same rationale was applied to Study 1b as Study 1a, i.e. to test if inhibition

occurs for incongruent category combinations and facilitation for congruent pairings. However there were two key differences. Firstly female and male faces rather than scenes were used (Pilot 2). These were paired with occupations again but semantically this time (Pilot 3). For example a female face could be paired with the word ‘mechanic’. This

1 These faces were drawn from a different database to the target items because we were unable to obtain enough stimuli from The University of Stirling database. However, all faces were very similar in size and format.


REFERENCE No.

19

controlled for extraneous variables that might be associated with viewing targets in scenes and occupational clothing in Study 1. Secondly we added a control condition with stereotypically neutral occupations (Pilot 4). This would allow us to see if the effect was inhibition or facilitation relative to baseline responding (a requirement for a most confident assessment of inhibition or facilitation).

Thirty-two participants were allocated to a 2 (sex of target: female vs. male) x 3 (combination valence: congruent vs. neutral (control) vs. incongruent) within-subjects design. Participants determined the sex of an on screen target as quickly and accurately as possible. Male and female faces were each paired with an occupation (semantically rather than visually in contrast to Study 1a) that was either stereotypically incongruent (surprising), or stereotypically congruent (unsurprising) with that of sex, or stereotypically neutral (control). Response times were taken as the dependent measure. It was expected that perceivers would take longer to sex categorize females in incongruent occupations over congruent occupations. More importantly to show a true inhibition and facilitation effects, it was expected that perceivers would take longer to sex categorize females in incongruent occupations relative to neutral (control) occupations – inhibition. However categorizing females in congruent occupations would be quicker than those in control occupations - facilitation. The same pattern was expected for the male combinations.

Study 2The aim of Study 2 was to determine whether subliminal primes that were

congruent or incongruent with the sex of the subsequent face would influence response times to decide the sex of that face. Specifically, it was predicted that trials where the prime and sex were congruent, e.g., whisk prime and then a female face, should lead to quicker sex categorisations than trials where the prime and sex categorisation were incongruent, e.g. spanner prime then a female face. It was also expected that when the prime-face pairing was incongruent this would lead to a slowing of response times over the control pairings, whilst prime-face pairings that were congruent this would lead to a slowing of response times over the control pairings. Twenty-one participants were allocated to a 2 (sex: male vs. female) x 3 (combination valence primed: congruent vs. neutral (control) vs. incongruent)) within subjects design. In each trial the perceiver was presented with a star to fixate their attention at the centre of the screen. This was followed by a forward mask that was the same size as the photograph of the faces, which was then replaced by the prime picture. The prime was either a picture of a whisk (female stereotypic) a spanner (male stereotypic) or a pen (control). A backward mask - identical to the forward mask, followed this. Finally participants were presented with either a female or a male face until participants responded.

Study 3Study 3 tested the hypothesis that categorizing incongruent category

combinations requires executive resources. Twenty-seven undergraduate participants were allocated to a 3 (load type: articulatory suppression vs. executive vs. no load) x 2 (sex target: female vs. male) x 2 (combination type: congruent vs. incongruent) mixed design with repeated measures on the second and third factors. Participants were told their task was to determine the sex of the person on screen using the same stimuli and methodology as Studies 1a (visually congruent or incongruent combinations). Additionally in the articulatory condition they were instructed to vocalize the word 'the' on every beat of the metronome. In the executive condition the instruction was to vocalize a ‘random number’ between 1 and 5 every second. In the control condition no additional instruction was given. Response times were measured as the dependent variable. It was predicted that undertaking a secondary executive task would disrupt


REFERENCE No.

20

response times (i.e. increase them - because surprising combinations are resource consuming (Hutter & Crisp, 2006) when categorizing incongruent combinations but not congruent combinations. We expected no effect in the articulatory condition, for incongruent combinations i.e. because articulatory resources are less necessary for the task.

Study 4aThe aim of Study 4 was to determine whether pairing an occupational attribute

(compared to the category itself in Study 1b) that was congruent or incongruent with the sex of the face presented would influence response times in deciding on the sex of that face. In contrast to Study 1b the participant was required to vocalize the on screen attribute.

Twenty-nine participants were allocated to a 2 (sex of target (female vs. male) x 3 (occupational attribute valence: congruent vs. neutral (control) vs. incongruent within subjects design. Participants were told they would have to simultaneously vocalize the attribute that would appear on the screen with each face, whilst they were responding to the sex identification task. The image was presented until the participant responded. Response times were taken as the dependent measure. In each of the main trials the participant was male or female face that had an attribute written in text below. The attribute was either occupational (7 nurse vs. 7 mechanic) selected following a frequency analysis from Study 3, Hutter and Crisp (2005b), or neutral (14 selected from Bem's Sex Role Inventory (1974). The male and female faces were matched into 17 pairs based (on the outcome of Pilot 2) in order to reduce the possibility of confounding attention time for attractiveness and sex typicality. It was predicted that in the trials where the occupational attribute and sex were congruent, e.g. a nurse attribute and a female face sex categorisations would be facilitated compared to a control condition where occupation was sex neutral. When the attribute and sex were incongruent, e.g. a mechanic attribute and a female face this was expected to lead to response inhibition compared to control.

Study 4bThe aim of Study 4b was to determine whether subliminal occupational primes

that were congruent or incongruent with the sex of the subsequent face would influence response times to decide the sex of that face. This was essentially an implicit version of Study 4a. Thirty participants were allocated to a 2 (sex of target (female vs. male) x 3 (occupational attribute valence: congruent vs. neutral (control) vs. incongruent within subjects design. Participants were shown a surprising (e.g. male + considerate), unsurprising (e.g. male + strong), sex/occupational attribute combinations and neutral (control) sex/neutral sex attributes (e.g. male + likeable). Response times were taken as the dependent measure. Perceivers were presented with a star to fixate their attention at the centre of the screen followed by a forward mask of ‘xxxxxxxxxxxx’, which was then replaced by the prime attribute for 30ms. The prime was an occupational attribute (7 nurse vs. 7 mechanic) selected following a frequency analysis from Study 3, Hutter and Crisp (2005b), or neutral (14 selected from Bem's Sex Role Inventory, 1974). The same mask now as a backward mask followed this. Finally participants were presented with either a female or a male face the face was presented until participants responded. The male and female faces were matched into 17 pairs based (on the outcome of Pilot 2) in order to reduce the possibility of confounding attention time for attractiveness and sex typicality.

It was predicted that in trials where the primed occupational attribute and sex were congruent, e.g. a nurse attribute and a female face sex categorisations would be facilitated compared to a control condition where occupation was sex neutral. When the


REFERENCE No.

21

primed attribute and sex were incongruent, e.g. a mechanic attribute and a female face this was expected to lead to response inhibition compared to control.

RESULTS

Study 1aResults showed that perceivers took longer to sex categorize females in

incongruent occupations (M = 681.56 ms; SD = 206.01) over congruent occupation (M= 625.75 ms; SD = 166.56), but whilst there was a trend in the predicted direction for the male combinations this was not significant. We speculate that this may be due to the greater permeability of the category boundary for traditional female occupations, e.g. nursing to men. However there is, we propose, less permeability of the category boundary for traditional male occupations to females, e.g. engineering to women. This explanation is consistent with previous findings – Hutter and Crisp (2005b) found that incongruent versus congruent male combinations did not show any difference in use of stereotypical (constituent) and non-stereotypical (emergent) attributes, whilst female combinations did.

Study 1b Our results showed firstly that again there was no reliable effect for the male

combinations (in line with Study 1a). The female unsurprising combinations showed facilitation, i.e. the female unsurprising combinations (M = 978.46 ms; SD = 233.59) were responded to more quickly than control (M = 1049.44 ms; SD = 258.63). However no evidence was found for inhibition when categorizing the surprising combinations.

Study 2Results showed a facilitation effect for the congruent female-tool pairing (M =

532.45 ms; SD = 73.67) over control (M = 602.72 ms; SD = 101.14), however there was no evidence of inhibition of the incongruent female–tool pairing over control. Also the congruent female-tool pairings (M = 532.45 ms; SD = 73.67) were responded to faster than the incongruent female-tool pairings (M = 567.99 ms; SD = 97.67). There was some evidence of facilitation for the male tool-pairing combinations over control (although not significant). Interestingly there was evidence of inhibition of the incongruent male-tool pairings (M = 579.20 ms; SD = 93.56), compared to control (M = 540.37 ms; SD = 98.17). The incongruent trials were slower compared to the congruent (although again not significantly).

Study 3Results showed there was no effect of load type across sex of target for either

incongruent or congruent combinations. There was an effect of load, as expected with those allocated to the executive condition (M = 1014.31 ms; SE = 63.11) taking longer to sex categorize compared to both control (M = 609.21 ms; SE = 63.11), and articulatory conditions (M = 647.77 ms; SE = 63.11). These results suggest that executive resources tapping inhibition may not necessarily be involved when sex categorizing incongruent or surprising targets. Indeed this result is consistent with the pattern of results so far, i.e. facilitation for congruent combinations, but little evidence of inhibition of constituent categories in incongruent combinations.

Study 4aOur results showed no overall effect, suggesting that the facilitation effect found

in Study 1a and more pertinently in Study 1b is dependent upon perception of a social


REFERENCE No.

22

category at a superordinate level, i.e. at the level of category and not attribute. The attributes presented here whilst pre-tested for association with their respective categories may well also be to a greater or lesser degree associated with other cognitive structures based on individual differences. For example the attribute ‘greasy’ was listed as highly associated with ‘Mechanic’ in Hutter and Crisp’s (2005) work, however it is highly plausible that it has a number of other associations.

Study 4bResults essentially showed a mixed pattern with unexpected facilitation for the

incongruent combination (M = 738.92 ms; SD = 316.55) over control (M = 831.45 ms; SD = 355.07) for the female combination types (and some non significant evidence of facilitation for the congruent combination over control also). The reverse seemed to be the case for the male combinations with inhibition for the incongruent combinations (M= 721.72 ms; SD = 257.93) over control combination types (M = 646.39 ms; SD = 186.428) and also inhibition again for the congruent combination (M = 721.72 ms; SD = 257.93) over control (M = 646.39 ms; SD = 186.428). Again these results may attributable to the same reasons outlined in Study 4a.

Conclusion In conclusion we believe the project has been successful especially given the

unfortunate extended period of sick leave for the appointed Research Fellow. We were able to administer 6 rather than the originally outlined 4 studies. It appears that we do notinhibit conflicting constituent categories – we are however slower to sex categorize. We found some evidence of facilitation for congruent combinations but not inhibition for incongruent combinations relative to control (except study 4b). It also appears that the facilitation effect works best at the level of superordinate categorization and not so well at the ‘attributional’ level of occupations. As discussed this may be because attributes can be associated with more than one category. No evidence was found for interference on incongruent versus congruent trials when under executive load – which is consistent with our other findings of facilitation but not inhibition. However it could be argued that this could be due to the nature of the task – i.e. simple sex categorization task which forced perceivers to categorize as male or female. Given the opportunity perceivers will instigate executive resources when perceiving incongruent combinations (e.g. Hutter & Crisp, 2006). It is possible that the forced choice nature of the task involved here did not require perceivers to instigate executive resources. This fits with Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990) continuum of impression formation. If the task had required perceivers’ to generateattributes to describe these incongruent combinations it is probable that executive resources would have been instigated, indeed this is precisely what Hutter and Crisp (2006) found. So the task here appears not to have required perceivers to instigate executive resources, instead they may have subtyped the target for two reasons: Firstly it requires fewer resources; secondly, they were able to maintain their stereotypes of males and females by not instigating resources (Weber & Crocker 1983).

ACTIVITIESHutter, R. R. C., Crisp, R.J., Coates, S. L. & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). The

inhibition of constituent categories in surprising social combinations? Poster presentation given at the 8th Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, 25th – 27th January.

Hutter, R. R. C., Coates, S., Crisp, R.J., Humphreys, G.W., & Moffitt, G. (2006). Cognitive resources in social category combinations. Poster presentation given at the 53rd

BPS Social Psychology Section Conference, (See Proceedings of the BPS).


REFERENCE No.

23

Hutter, R. R. C. (2006). Constituent inhibition in incongruent social combinations? Talk presented at the EPS Plymouth meeting, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK, 10th – 12th July.

OUTPUTSHutter, R. R. C., Crisp, R.J., Coates, S. L. & Humphreys, G. W. (in preparation).

Reduced stereotype activation for surprising combinations: A slowing in facilitation but no evidence of inhibition.

IMPACTS

Our main finding was that that perceiving surprising combinations relies upon reduced facilitation and not inhibition. Thus when forming impressions of targets defined by surprising category combinations participants were slower to categorize targets relative to when combinations are unsurprising, rather than there being any inhibition of constituent category activation relative to baseline. In other words they were slower to apply sex stereotypes, rather than actively inhibiting them using executive resources. Our findings will mainly impact upon the academic social psychological and /or cognitive literature.

FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Our intention is to extend on this project through publication of the studies described above and continued dissemination at academic conferences and future grant funding. Our future research aims to test what tasks precisely require cognitive resources when perceiving combinations. We have shown here that forming impression of surprising combinations does not require inhibition of constituent categories. This builds on our previous research that has shown forming impressions of surprising combinations involves the generation of emergent attributes. Our future work will build on these findings to further extend our knowledge of the psychological processes involved in the perception of surprising category combinations.

Word count: 5,028


REFERENCE No.

24

References

Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5-28.

Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 39-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hastie, R., Schroeder, C., & Weber, R. (1990). Creating complex social conjunction categories from simple categories. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 242-247.

Hutter, R. R. C. (2005). Social category conjunctions: Cognitive processes and representational consequences. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Birmingham, U.K.

Hutter, R. R. C., & Crisp, R. J. (2005a). The composition of category conjunctions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31, 647-657.

Hutter, R. R. C., & Crisp, R. J. (2006). Implications of cognitive busyness for the perception of category conjunctions. The Journal of Social Psychology. 146, 253-256.

Kunda, Z., Miller, D. T., & Claire, T. (1990). Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 14, 551-577.

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Schloerscheidt, A. M., & Milne, A. B. (1999). Tales of the unexpected: Executive function and person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 200-213.

Srull, T. K., and Wyer, R. S. (1989). Person memory and judgement. Psychological Review, 96, 58-83.

Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.

Uleman, J.S., Newman, L.S., & Moskowitz, G.B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 28, 211-279.

Wilkenfield, M.J., & Ward, T.B. (2001). Similarity and emergence in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language. 45, 21-38.


REFERENCE No.

25

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the ESRC’s generosity in financing a

replacement Research Fellow and granting a two-month extension to the project. This

was due to a continuous period of sick leave in excess of 3 months for the originally

appointed Research Fellow.


Date post:	11-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vandat
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

Research Report Constituent inhibition in surprising ... · PDF fileREFERENCE No. 14 Research...

Documents