User:RJacko1996/sandbox

A dichotomizing heuristic is an inference that; what is true of one group is not true of another novel (to the perceiver) group. For example; when people form an impression of a person from a known social group, they tend to form those impressions based on their perceptions of that known social group - a dichotomizing heuristic is (by contrast) a characteristic of what happens when a person builds their impression of a person from a unknown social group.

Perceptions of Social Groups
Social groups can be perceived differently based upon a number of different identifying characteristics. A range of identifiers such as: socio-economic status/background, cultural/ethnic heritage, political allegiances, and even down to specific tastes in art/music etc. can be used to identify social groups and inform perceptions about them.

People's perspectives of other social groups have been shown to be influenced by prior knowledge about alike groups and/or knowledge about other groups. These judgments about groups based on prior knowledge are what are called Heuristics which allow people to make inferences quickly without having to make more in depth and careful judgments using more deliberate thinking. Heuristics allow people to reduce cognitive load by using these prior perceptions of alike groups. Heuristics however - due to there being based of prior judgements, will often lead to more prejudiced perceptions of social groups. By contrast to these heuristics dichotomising heuristics are used by people in the forming of perceptions about novel social groups with little-to-no common features shared with other known social groups.

Dichotomising heuristics manifest as a person making judgments about an unknown social groups based upon an assumption that the opposite of what is true of a known social group is untrue of a novel social group...

Kramer, Goldfarb, Tashjian, and Lagattuta (2021) - Evidence of Dichotomising Heuristics
Many studies have investigated the presence and effects of heuristics and have shown how they effect judgments of social groups. These studies show that heuristics in general play a primary role in decision-making and perceptions. Studies have also shown how these heuristics are shaped by and shape prejudices, stereotypes, etc.

Dichotomising Heuristics have been observed in a study by Kramer, Goldfarb, Tashjian, and Lagattuta (2021). Towards investigating this heuristic; Kramer, Goldferb, Tashjian, and Lagattuta ran three studies.

Study 1
In this first study, 181 children and adults who were divided into three age groups (66 5-year-olds, 62 8-year-olds, and 53 adults.

The participants in this initial study were shown a video which taught them about a fictitious social group called 'Twiggums'. Participants learned that some of these Twiggums lived seperate from the main body of the Twiggums and called themselves 'Zuttles'. In either generic ('Zuttles like apples') or specific ('This specific Zuttle likes apples') language, participants learned some attributes of these Zuttles. All attributes were benign and non-distinctive. This information made the Twiggums an uncharacterised group (no information is known about their attributes) and the Zuttles a characterised group (some attributes are known about this group).

Once the participant learned the necessary information, they completed a social categorisation task in which participant had to determine weather a series of creatures were either Twiggums or Zuttles based upon information about the characteristics of the zuttles. In a 'negative stance' context, participants had been told that the Twiggums had created a law that forbade any Zuttles from living in the same place as the Twiggums. In the negative stance context, the identification of a Zuttle would be sent to jail for 100 days and then deported. In a 'neutral stance' context, there was no negative consequences for the identified Zuttles.

After the social categorisation task, participants completed a uncharacterised group task where they had to predict the Twiggums' preferences and abilities. Participants were asked about eight characteristics of the Twiggums. Responses were coded as dichotomised (participant thought that the twiggums had the opposite preference or ability of the Zuttles) or aligned (participant indicated that they thought that the twiggums had the same preference as the Zuttles).

According to the researchers, the result of this first study indicated that by the age of eight, people tend to exhibit this dichotomising heuristic in the formation of impressions of novel social groups. Older children and adults in the study used the information about a known group used that information to infer that the opposite would be true of the novel group. Although this dichotomising heuristic was observed at an indivudual level, there was still a minority of participants who constantly assumed that both groups had identical preferences and abelites.

this study served to confirm to the researchers that the dichotomizing heuristic is present.

Study 2
210 undergraduate students participated in this next study.

In a Narrative and Social Categorisation Task, the participants were given information about the Twiggums and the Zuttles (the same information as was given in Study 1). As in the first study, participants in a negative condition completed a categorisation task where an identified Zuttle would be jailed for 100 days and deported. In a positive condition, identified Zuttles would be allowed to live with the Twiggums.

After this initial narrative and social categorisation task, the participants completed a Uncharacterised Group Task where they had to complete three 'questioning sets' where they had to infer the traits of Twiggums (similar to Study 1 - about preferences, abilities, etc.). In the initial set, the participants were presented with 12 characteristics about the Zuttles that were introduced in the beginning of the study; In the second set, the participants were presented for the first time with 12 novel characteristics; and in the third set, the participants were told about 12 evaluative traits about the Zuttles and were asked to then make inferences about the Twiggums.

According to the researchers, this second study clarified what the factors are which lead people to use dichotomising heuristics when forming impression about other social groups.

Study 3
206 participants participated in this study.

In a Narrative and Social Categorisation Task, participants in a 'Two-Group Condition' were informed about a fictional island where groups of humans lived. Half of the participants were informed that two groups of humans lived on the island (Zuttles and Twiggums). In a 'Many-Group Condition', participants learned of the fictional island where many groups of humans lived and that one of the groups were called Zuttles.

in the next step, all participants learned 12 characteristics that belonged to the Zuttles. half of the participants completed the characterisation task which was the same as task 2 for the Two-Group Condition and the same for the Many-Group Condition except that they were asked to identify weather the being was a Zuttle or 'someone from another group'.

In a Uncharacterised Group Task, the participants completed four questioning sets: (1) Characteristics included in the information at the beginning of this study; (2) 12 preferences & abilities described using novel words; (3) 12 evaluative traits about Zuttles; (4) Participant responded to 12 preference trials where Zuttles held universal attitudes (attitudes that are held universally.

Finally, a Proximity Task where participants responded to questions about where the Zuttles and Wiggums live investigated the participant's perceptions of the Zuttles and Wiggums live. This task was interested in weather the participants thought that the Zuttles and Wiggums lived separately or together on their island.

According to the researchers, the results of the uncharacterised Group task replicated and expanded the second study. The researcheds found that their was no evidence that any use of a dichotomising heuristic is dependant on explicit contrast between two groups. Researchers also found that universal characteristics reamained assumed for all groups and call this a 'reasonable boundary' for dichotomising heuristics.

For the Proximity Task, researchers found that participants used dichotomising heuristics even when social groups were viewed as being integrated with one another. Results also suggested that the more perceived differences there were between the groups, the the greater the perceived physical separation between groups was.

Applications and Limitations of the Heuristic
Evidence for this heuristic exist in fictional settings, but investigation this heuristic in more real-world environments would be useful for further investigating how this heuristic presents itself. As Kramer, Goldfarb, Tashjian, and Lagattuta suggest at the end of their paper, the real-world implications of this heuristic as a shaper of peoples' misconceptions about social justice movements (Black Lives Matter etc.) could be useful for explaining misconceptions.

The hueristic was not found to present and thus useful in children younger than 8-years-of-age by Kramer, Goldfarb, Tashjian, and Lagattuta.