In understanding our social world we act as 'intuitive scientists'. Evaluate this proposition drawing upon relevant psychological research
P1
In understanding our social world we act as 'intuitive scientists'. Evaluate this proposition drawing upon relevant psychological research
How we perceive and understand the social world is a crucial element to our lives. Social psychologists understand social behaviour by looking at our attitudes towards other people and social issues. Through research and experimental social psychology, findings can show how people make sense of their social worlds. One theory suggests that we operate like 'intuitive scientists', by looking for predictability and regularity in order to build models of cause and effect. This essay will evaluate the claim by looking at supporting evidence, considering arguments both for and against the theory. First it may be useful to look at what is meant by the term 'intuitive scientists'.
Our beliefs and knowledge along with attitudes have always been the basis of how we perceive our social world. Heider (cited in Buchanan, Anand, Joffe and Thomas, 2007) presents the idea that we are all 'intuitive scientists' or ' naïve psychologists'. This would suggest that we use a form of 'top down influence', which brings past experiences to the task, shaping our expectations of how things usually happen. We use our pre existing knowledge and experiences, combined with predictability and regularity to make decisions and look for cause and effect, especially regarding the behaviour of others. Knowledge is organized, stored, accessed and used in our every day lives and this cognitive structure is known as a schema, where small sections of information can combine into a whole. Schemas can involve people and personality traits, social roles and groups, social situations and activities. Cognitive psychologists argue that we have a limited capacity processor so schemas are used as a type of filter in order to help us to attend to what is important and relevant. By using the schemas and experiences of our social world it could suggest that we
In understanding our social world we act as 'intuitive scientists'. Evaluate this proposition drawing upon relevant psychological research
How we perceive and understand the social world is a crucial element to our lives. Social psychologists understand social behaviour by looking at our attitudes towards other people and social issues. Through research and experimental social psychology, findings can show how people make sense of their social worlds. One theory suggests that we operate like 'intuitive scientists', by looking for predictability and regularity in order to build models of cause and effect. This essay will evaluate the claim by looking at supporting evidence, considering arguments both for and against the theory. First it may be useful to look at what is meant by the term 'intuitive scientists'.
Our beliefs and knowledge along with attitudes have always been the basis of how we perceive our social world. Heider (cited in Buchanan, Anand, Joffe and Thomas, 2007) presents the idea that we are all 'intuitive scientists' or ' naïve psychologists'. This would suggest that we use a form of 'top down influence', which brings past experiences to the task, shaping our expectations of how things usually happen. We use our pre existing knowledge and experiences, combined with predictability and regularity to make decisions and look for cause and effect, especially regarding the behaviour of others. Knowledge is organized, stored, accessed and used in our every day lives and this cognitive structure is known as a schema, where small sections of information can combine into a whole. Schemas can involve people and personality traits, social roles and groups, social situations and activities. Cognitive psychologists argue that we have a limited capacity processor so schemas are used as a type of filter in order to help us to attend to what is important and relevant. By using the schemas and experiences of our social world it could suggest that we