Psychological need to reduce ambiguity?

[firecat]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111221140627.htm

Excerpt:

In a new article published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Arne Roets and Alain Van Hiel of Ghent University in Belgium look at what psychological scientists have learned about prejudice....

People who are prejudiced feel a much stronger need to make quick and firm judgments and decisions in order to reduce ambiguity. "Of course, everyone has to make decisions, but some people really hate uncertainty and therefore quickly rely on the most obvious information, often the first information they come across, to reduce it" Roets says....

It's virtually impossible to change the basic way that people think.

I'm very curious about that last statement. At what point does the "basic way" that a person thinks develop? Is it nature or nurture, and in what proportions? If it's true that some people need to reduce ambiguity more than others, do we know what contributes to that? Is it possible to teach people to tolerate more ambiguity, or to tolerate ambiguity in more situations?

I'm obviously assuming here that tolerating ambiguity would generally be a good skill to have (although I think it might lead to problems in situations where immediate action is required). I really dislike prejudice and the damage it causes, so if training in tolerating ambiguity might help diminish it, I would be in favor.

I think I've learned to tolerate ambiguity a lot better over the years, so my personal experience makes me doubt the assertion that it's impossible to change the way people think. It's possible that being on antidepressants is what made the difference for me, though.

Comments

[elf]

Link to the abstract of the paper is at the journal site; it mentions, in part, "Finally, we discuss recent evidence indicating that, in contrast to Allport’s pessimistic predictions, intergroup contact is especially effective in reducing prejudice among people high in NFC." (emphasis added.) Actual paper is behind an academic paywall.

So: they can learn to tolerate ambiguity when it's obviously necessary. (Like, they meet enough different people to know that stereotypes don't work to tell them how those people think and act.)

Makes me wonder if there's some essential difference between sexism and many other kinds of prejudice, many of which are aimed at "those OTHER people not part of my community." It's not like anyone lacks exposure to numerous people of both genders--but I suppose it's possible that some only encounter women in specific roles (housewife-and-mother) and assume they're incapable of doing anything else.

The paper seems to partially explain how privilege continues: in addition to reinforcing power (and usually money) for those who have it, it reduces ambiguity for the people who aren't directly benefiting from it. And, wow, why it's so hard to fight even among people who objectively recognize that everyone should have equal rights: eliminating unconscious prejudices ties into decision fatigue because they'd have to make new judgments and decisions all the time.

[firecat]

Thanks!

intergroup contact is especially effective in reducing prejudice

That's good to know.

Makes me wonder if there's some essential difference between sexism and many other kinds of prejudice

Indeed.

eliminating unconscious prejudices ties into decision fatigue because they'd have to make new judgments and decisions all the time.

Yes, that makes sense. Which says to me that education against prejudice should be a lifelong thing, so that the idea that other people are human isn't new.