Knowledge paradigms are like the model of a house. there is adequate item to place a certain object or event but there is besides room to incorporate new information or cognition ( Bargh. Chen & A ; Burrows. 1996 ) . For illustration a mental paradigm of a priest is person who is male. wears a wont or vestment and works in the church. When we are confronted with say an image of a priest that is different from our paradigm. so we accommodate that information into the paradigm to enable us to place a different sort of priest.
Therefore. when we see a curate. we say that he is like a priest but is allowed to get married and serves Protestants or Baptist churchs. Confronted with a female curate. we once more add another constituent to our paradigm to suit the cognition that for Christian groups. females can be curates or head the church. However. when the head is non exposed to other signifiers or sorts of a peculiar object or event. the prototype’s strength additions and therefore we merely think and know that birds have wings and they can wing since all the birds we have encountered have these features.
Stereotypes consequences from a strengthened paradigm and sometimes we think of others stereotypically and we tend to generalise a peculiar trait or characteristic to all other persons or objects as sharing that characteristic. Stereotypes arise from undisputed paradigms and we frequently tend to automatically trust on our stereotype of an person or object to give judgement or sentiments ( Blair & A ; Banaji. 1996 ) . I had a black American friend in college. she was reasonably. smart and wiser than most of us back so.
She was dark skinned and she came from New York. we ever sat mesmerized by her narratives of the metropolis and how alive it was during the dark. Since we lived in the same floor. she and I got to be best friends as the semester went by. I have ne’er seen any images of her household and she said that she was an lone kid. and she did non like holding images of her parents around her because she would merely lose them more. When I looked at her. I merely saw a black American miss. she had the same tegument. the same wavy hair and curly at the roots. she was tall and had a certain bounciness to her walk.
I she talked about her parents love narrative and I was enthralled by the love affair and escapade that her parents had because she said theirs was a love against all odds. I merely thought so that it was because her female parent came from a rich household and her male parent had a little 2nd manus bookstore. As the term was about to stop. she told me that her parents were picking her up and would I desire to run into them. to which I readily agreed to. So on our terminal of term Saturday dark. I was introduced to her parents and I got the surprise of my immature age. her female parent was white!
It so all came hotfooting to me to recognize that my friend was really lighter than most other black Americans. and that her hair was merely wavy. non truly curly like others and she had brown eyes. This state of affairs demonstrated misidentification. since I thought of my friend as a black American ; I presumed that her parents were black and that they shared the same physical properties. My mental paradigm of black American kids was that they had black American parents. and my paradigm of genetic sciences said that kids inherent the features of the parents.
Therefore I was believing that since my friend was black. so her parents are besides black ( Fiske & A ; Taylor. 1991 ) . There are some cases when it is easy to construct paradigms. this include rich information objects or events. we know that an orange’s colour is orangish since it is named after the colour. or we might believe of the colour orange and visualise the colour of the fruit. There are besides hard state of affairss wherein making a paradigm is a challenge.
For illustration we are confronted with the image of a Gallic staff of life. we now that it is long. crusty and difficult to masticate. therefore if we are given a Gallic staff of life that does non hold this features. so we say that what is served is non Gallic staff of life but a crescent roll or a biscuit depending on its other features. Prototypes are utile when we use it to suit new information. it can besides be used or when we are asked to move in a state of affairs that is unusual and unpredictable and we retrieve from our paradigms to assist us calculate the new information ( Macrae. Milne & A ; Bodenhausen. 1994 ) .
Like all other thought procedures. paradigms is inexact. mistakes will be brought by the inability to fit new information and the paradigms. Mistakes can be avoided when we adapt an unfastened head. and when we try to research and larn more about an object or event and non leap into decisions. Mentions Blair. I. & A ; Banaji. M. ( 1996 ) . Automatic and controlled procedures in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70. 1142-1163.
Bargh. J. . Chen. M. & A ; Burrows. L. ( 1996 ) . Automaticity of societal behaviour: Direct effects of trait concept and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 71. 230-244. Fiske. S. & A ; Taylor. S. ( 1991 ) . Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Macrae. C. . Milne. A. & A ; Bodenhausen. G. ( 1994 ) . Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peep inside the cognitive tool chest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 66. 37-47.