Advertisement

Prozesse der Konstruktion sozialer Wirklichkeit

  • Thomas KesslerEmail author
  • Immo Fritsche
Chapter
  • 16k Downloads
Part of the Basiswissen Psychologie book series (BASPSY)

Zusammenfassung

Prozesse des Denkens und der Informationsverarbeitung erklären wie Menschen ihre Urteile bilden, wie sie Wissen aus dem Gedächtnis abrufen und wie sie dieses Wissen in einer gegebenen Situation integrieren. In diesem Kapitel wird die Unterscheidung zwischen intuitiven und kontrollierten Prozessen eingeführt. Es werden verschiedene Urteils- und Entscheidungsheuristiken vorgestellt und anhand von Beispielen verdeutlicht. Hier soll auch auf eine kurze Diskussion der Rationalität bzw. Irrationalität „heuristischen Denkens“ eingegangen werden. Neben den unterschiedlichen Prozessen des Denkens werden auch Einflüsse aktivierten Wissens auf Urteile und Entscheidungen beschrieben. In diesem Zusammenhang wird insbesondere auf die positiven und negativen Aspekte der Aktivierung sozialer Stereotype eingegangen.

Literatur

  1. Anderson, J. R., Kline, P. J., & Beasley, C. M. (1979). A general learning theory and its application to schema abstraction. In G. H. Bower (Hrsg.), The psychology of learning and motivation (S. 236–318). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bruckmüller, S., Hegarty, P., & Abele, A. E. (2012). Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carli, L. L. (1999). Cognitive reconstruction, hindsight, and reactions to victims and perpetrators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 966–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corneille, O., Klein, O., Lambert, S., & Judd, C. M. (2002). On the role of familiarity with units of measurement in categorical accentuation: Tajfel and Wilkes (1963) revisited and replicated. Psychological Science, 13, 380–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cosmides. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Was natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert & Hixon. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegarty & Chryssochoou. (2005). Why ‘our’ policies set the standard more than ‘theirs’: Category norms and generalization between European Union countries. Social Cognition, 23, 491–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Hrsg.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (S. 493–508). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., & Slovich, P. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., Schkade, D. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelley, H. H. (1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality, 18, 431–439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Koranyi, N., Gast, A., & Rothermund, K. (2013). “Although quite nice, I was somehow not attracted by that person. ” Attitudes toward romantically committed opposite-sex others are immune to positive evaluative conditioning. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in chil- dren: Problems of induction. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Millikan, R. (1998). A common structure for concepts of individuals, stuffs, and real kinds: More mama, more milk and more mouse. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 55–65.Google Scholar
  19. Müller-Lyer, F. C. (1889). Optische Urteilstäuschungen. Archiv für Physiologie, 2 (Suppl.), 263–270.Google Scholar
  20. Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: The role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 81, 181–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Peterson, C. R., & Beach, L. R. (1967). Man as an intuitive statistician. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 29–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seavey, C., Katz, P., & Zalk, S. (1975). Baby X: The effect of gender labels on adult responses to infants. Sex Roles, 1, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Concepts and categories. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2005). Reflection and impulse as determinants of conscious and unconscious motivation. In J. Forgas, K. Williams, & S. Laham (Hrsg.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior (S. 579–596). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  26. Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 101–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Friedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaJenaDeutschland
  2. 2.Universität LeipzigLeipzigDeutschland

Personalised recommendations