MD699 Case 2: Assign Social Perceptions And Biases

Md699 Case2 Assignsocial Perceptions And Biasescase Assignmentattri

Identify and describe how multiple theories are used to support research questions and hypotheses in studies related to social perception.

Two theoretical notions are guiding the Carton and Rosette (2011) study on biases against black leaders:

• The first notion is the stereotype activation and adjustment process. This notion posits that stereotypes are automatically activated upon perceiving a group member, but individuals can adjust or suppress these stereotypes based on contextual cues or goals (Carton & Rosette, 2011). The implication for leadership evaluation is that bias may be present initially but can be modulated by situational factors—leading to either positive or negative judgments depending on the context. For example, evaluators might harbor stereotypes about black leaders but choose to adjust their evaluations based on observed performance.
• The second notion involves goal-driven or motivation-based stereotype regulation. This suggests that individuals' motivations or goals influence the degree to which stereotypes are utilized or suppressed during evaluations. When individuals aim for fairness or objectivity, they may actively counteract biased stereotypes, whereas in other contexts, stereotypes may more strongly influence judgments (Carton & Rosette, 2011). These notions are largely complementary: stereotype activation and adjustment provide a model for how bias can be present but modifiable, while goal-driven regulation explains when and why adjustments occur.

The implications of these two notions are mostly complementary, as they describe different stages or aspects of stereotype use. The activation of stereotypes may be automatic and unconscious, but the regulation influenced by goals can lead to either reinforcement or suppression of bias, aligning with the idea that bias is not solely automatic but also susceptible to contextual influence (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

Carton and Rosette (2011) predict that evaluators adjust stereotypes of black leaders based on performance outcomes:

• The authors draw on the dual-process models of information processing, notably the motivation to control bias, which suggests that individuals' stereotype application depends on cognitive resources and motivations (Fiske & Neuberg, 1992). Specifically, when performances are high, evaluators may downregulate negative stereotypes, whereas after failure, stereotypes might be reinforced.
• This prediction implies that black leaders' evaluations are fluid: they are judged more positively if they succeed, because stereotypes are suppressed or adjusted, but more negatively after failure, due to stereotype reinstatement. Such a dynamic indicates that evaluations are sensitive to performance and that stereotypes are not static but context-dependent (Fiske & Neuberg, 1992).

Attribution theory, as summarized by Kelley (1973), suggests that people interpret and make sense of their environment by assigning causes to events and behaviors:

According to Kelley (1973), attribution theory involves understanding how individuals infer the causes of behaviors in social contexts. He proposes that people use a set of cues or information, such as consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus, to determine whether behavior is dispositional (due to personality) or situational (due to external factors). This process is essential for making predictions, judgments, and decisions about others, influencing social perception and interaction.

In practice, individuals tend to attribute success to internal factors like ability or effort and failure to external factors like luck or task difficulty. However, these attributions are biased and influenced by various factors, including stereotypes and motivations. Kelley emphasizes that attribution is a cognitive process involving multiple cues and that these inferences shape subsequent perceptions and judgments.

Using Carton and Rosette (2011), the difference between inferences and stereotypes is clarified. Inferences are specific, context-dependent conclusions individuals draw about an individual’s behavior or traits based on available information, such as performance outcomes. In contrast, stereotypes are more general, normative beliefs about groups that are often automatically activated and less sensitive to specific contextual cues (Carton & Rosette, 2011). Stereotypes serve as mental shortcuts, biasing perceptions even when specific evidence suggests reconsideration. Inferences, however, are more flexible and can be adjusted or overridden based on additional information or goals.

Regarding the hypothesis that perceivers increase positive internal attributions after success and negative internal attributions after failure for both black and white leaders (Carton & Rosette, 2011), the evidence cited includes laboratory studies and field observations demonstrating that success is often linked to internal factors such as ability and effort, whereas failure is attributed to external factors or internal dispositional factors depending on context. For example, research shows that after successful performances, evaluators tend to praise internal qualities, while failure prompts external explanations or blame shifting (Miller & Lawson, 1989). These attribution patterns are influenced by social norms and cognitive biases, affecting how leadership success and failure are perceived across different racial groups (Kelley, 1973).

Paper For Above instruction

Social perception encompasses a complex interplay of cognitive processes, cultural influences, and motivational factors that shape how individuals interpret and evaluate others. Several theories provide foundational frameworks for understanding these processes, including attribution theory, stereotype activation and regulation, and goal-driven regulation of bias. In examining research such as Carton and Rosette (2011), these theories elucidate how biases against Black leaders are formed, maintained, or adjusted in different contexts, emphasizing the dynamism and malleability of social judgments.

Attribution theory, as proposed by Kelley (1973), fundamentally explains how individuals infer causes of behavior to make sense of their environment. Kelley’s model emphasizes that inferences about internal or external causes are based on cues like consistency (does the behavior happen consistently over time?), distinctiveness (is the behavior specific to a situation or person?), and consensus (do others behave similarly in the situation?). These cues guide the attribution process, which influences perceptions of competence, effort, and intent. In social perception, attribution biases can lead to overgeneralizations or stereotypes, especially when cues align with existing biases (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

In the context of leadership evaluation, attribution theory helps explain how observers interpret leaders' successes or failures. Success is often internally attributed—leader ability or effort—while failure is often externalized—external factors or situational barriers. These attributions impact subsequent judgments of leadership effectiveness and are influenced by stereotypes that can skew perceptions (Kelley, 1973). For instance, a Black leader’s failure might be unfairly attributed to internal dispositional factors due to racial stereotypes, reinforcing negative biases.

Stereotypes are mental shortcuts—socially shared beliefs about groups—that influence perceptions automatically. Carton and Rosette (2011) distinguish between stereotypes and inferences: stereotypes are broad, group-based generalizations that can bias judgments, whereas inferences are specific judgments based on available cues or evidence. Their research highlights how stereotypes about Black leaders can be activated automatically, but individuals can regulate or adjust these stereotypes based on performance cues or contextual motivations (Fiske & Neuberg, 1992). This regulation process is crucial in mitigating biases and fostering more accurate, fair evaluations.

Their study also predicts that evaluators will increase positive internal attributions of successful Black and white leaders and negative internal attributions after failure, based on evidence from experimental studies. This pattern aligns with the broader attribution literature, which illustrates that success generally enhances internal attributions, such as ability, while failure enhances external attributions or negative dispositional assumptions (Miller & Lawson, 1989). The research suggests that perceptions are context-dependent and susceptible to bias reinforcement or attenuation depending on outcome and underlying motivations.

Furthermore, the dual-process models of information processing, as discussed by Fiske and Neuberg (1992), underpin the hypothesis that stereotypes are initially activated automatically but can be consciously regulated with motivation and effort. When motivations to be fair or accurate are high, individuals may suppress stereotypic responses, leading to more egalitarian evaluations. Conversely, low motivation or cognitive load may result in stereotype reliance, reinforcing biases. This dynamic interplay influences how Black leaders are perceived, especially in high-stakes or performance-based evaluations.

In conclusion, these theories collectively enrich our understanding of social perception and bias. Attribution theory offers insights into how causes are inferred and how these attributions influence leadership evaluations. The distinction between stereotypes and inferences underscores the potential for bias regulation through awareness and motivation. Recognizing the cognitive and motivational processes involved can inform interventions aimed at reducing bias and promoting fairer assessments in leadership contexts.

References

• Carton, A. M., & Rosette, A. S. (2011). Explaining bias against black leaders: Integrating theory on information processing and goal-based stereotyping. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 765-786.
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. McGraw-Hill.
• Kelly, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(8), 1070–1078.
• Miller, A. G., & Lawson, T. (1989). The effect of an informational option on the fundamental attribution error. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(3), 194–204.
• Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1992). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-74.
• Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(8), 1070–1078.
• Feldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 76–86.
• Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 988–1010.
• Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 431–441.
• Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103.