1.Humans have a natural tendency to process information in a way that saves time
and minimizes cognitive efforts. We categorize things we observe into our existing
knowledge, better remember what we have seen more recently, or are quicker to
identify information that is consistent with our beliefs. While these patterns of
thinking, referred to as heuristics, help us quickly make sense of the world and make
expedited decisions, they often come at the expense of the truth. Given that humans
have evolved to use heuristics in everyday decisions, how can we resist such
“hardwired” tendencies, especially when using heuristics may lead to faulty
conclusions? In this essay, I will first demonstrate how heuristics can resultin
inaccuracies despite their evolutionary benefits, using stereotypes as an example to
illustrate the negative implications of heuristics. Based onmy analysis of the sources
of biases in heuristic thinking, I propose ways in which we can intervene to resist this
tendency of stereotyping others.Finally, I will discuss how such interventions can
promote human flourishing.
2. Heuristics are evolutionarily adaptive strategies that enable humans to
systematically process information and make decisions quickly (Haselton etal.,2015).
We are most likely to rely on heuristics when we face a situation that affords limited
time or information, as heuristics “reduce thecomplex tasks of assessing probabilities
and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974,
p.1124). From anevolutionary standpoint, using such mental shortcuts is particularly
useful when one experiences a threat to one’s safety, as the cost of engaging ina
slower and more complex reasoning outweighs the potential benefit of enhanced
accuracy (Arkes 1991). In a study that induced participants tofeel an ambient
physical threat by lowering the light level of the room, participants showed a
stronger belief than those in the control conditionthat outgroup men were violent,
displaying the use of heuristics that associate outgroups with a greater risk (Schaller
et al., 2003). This exampleshows that heuristic thinking is a deeply ingrained human
tendency that gets activated even by the subtle cue of the environment.
3.Although heuristic thinking is useful under limited time and resources, it can also
lead to systematic inaccuracies in our judgments or decisions.When people use a
representativeness heuristic, they make automatic associations between the entity
and the features of its categories based on apreviously formed subjective impression,
regardless of the objective truth (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). However, this can
lead to err on eousover generalization, as these associations are often ignoring the
individual characteristics of the entity in question. Stereotyping, a tendency
tocategorize individuals into groups and develop beliefs about them based on the
group membership (Powell et al., 2002), is a clear example of howusing a
representativeness heuristic can lead to inaccurate beliefs about an individual. For
example, a study conducted prior to the 2008 electionfound that participants
thought of Obama as “less American” than British prime minister Tony Blair (Devos &
Ma, 2013). Being Whiteprototypically represents American-ness, and therefore,
people categorized Obama based on the representativeness of his race rather than
his truenational identity. Like this example, even if we know the target in question,
the power of heuristics is strong enough to influence our belief aboutothers.
3. As the by-products of heuristic thinking, stereotypes negatively impact individuals
on wide- ranging domains. When an individual becomes awareof the negative
stereotypes about their social group, they feel anxious about confirming the
stereotype (Steele & Aronson, 1995). The stressresulting from such “stereotype
threat” depletes the person’s cognitive resources and impairs performance. A
process like this affects how oneperceives their own abilities even when the
stereotype does not apply to them. As such, by engaging in heuristic thinking that
generatesstereotypes, people may end up stigmatizing others and creating a vicious
cycle of letting the stereotypes become self-fulfilled. Then, how can weresist the
urge to form erroneous beliefs about others based on heuristics, which seems
hardwired and difficult to control?
4.One way to reduce automatic stereotyping based on heuristics is to have more
frequent and high- quality interactions with members of a group thatone has limited
experience with. “Contact hypothesis” suggests that close interactions between
majority and minority members can lead toreduced stereotyping and prejudice
(Allport et al., 1954). Through learning more about outgroup members and forming
relationships with them ona deeper level, people can de-categorize outgroup
members and see them as individuals, focusing on their unique characteristics rather
thanautomatically ascribing stereotypic characteristics to them (Gaertner et al.,
1993). Increased interactions with outgroup members also reduceanxiety about the
intergroup contact over time (Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Blascovich et al., 2001). As
people are more likely to use heuristicswhen their attentional resources are
constrained by the situation (Pohl et al., 2013), reduced anxiety could also lower the
likelihood of usingheuristics to form quick beliefs about outgroup members.
5.Also, exposing people to counter-stereotypical examples can reduce the bias that
may result from using erroneous heuristics. Frequent interactionswith diverse
groups of people would increase the chance of encountering a person who does not
conform to socially-constructed stereotypes, thuschanging what is thought of as
“representative” of a group in one’s mind. Research by Dasgupta and Asgari (2004),
which examined thestereotypic beliefs about one’s own social group, provides
compelling evidence that even a brief exposure to a counter-stereotypic exemplar
canimpact people’s automatic beliefs. In this study, female students saw pictures or
read paragraph-long descriptions of famous women in positions ofpower (e.g., Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice), which is counter to the common
stereotype that associates women withsubordinate roles or less power. After seeing
or reading about women in power, participants were quicker to associate women
with leadershipcompared to those who saw control stimuli. The result was replicated
by a year-long study that examined the longer-term effects of attending acollege
with a greater proportion of female leadership. Compared to the ones who attended
a coeducational college, those who attended a women’scollege were less likely to
show automatic stereotypic beliefs about women. This effect was explained by how
frequently one was exposed tofemale leaders (i.e., female faculty)
6. Another way to prevent people from forming inaccurate beliefs based on
stereotypes is to interrupt automatic, heuristic thinking and to facilitateslower
reasoning that can systematically correct one’s biases (Kahneman, 2011). When the
circumstance affords one to use mental shortcuts,biases can creep in. This happens
often in the evaluation process within organizations, but simple measures that
disrupt the automatic process ofheuristic thinking can prevent people from reaching
these biased conclusions. For example, in one resume screening study, it was found
thatportfolios with the same qualification levels were four to six times more likely to
get rejected when they had ethnic minority names (e.g., Arabnames) as compared to
ethnic majority names (e.g., Dutch names) (Derous & Ryan, 2012). However,
anonymizing resumes and thus removing thecues that activate heuristic thinking
hasbeen shown to reduce such biases (e.g., Åslund & Skans, 2012; Kang et al., 2016).
Ambiguous evaluation criteria also invite biased evaluationsbased on the use of
stereotypes instead of objective evidence of individual traits. Stanford researchers
found that the performance reviews at acompany with little evaluation guidelines
showed a gendered pattern in the criteria used: women were criticized for being too
aggressive, and menfor being too soft (Mackenzie et al., 2019). When the
researchers created a checklist to help managers use criteria consistently and
referencespecific data to base their evaluations, gender gaps in ratings were
reduced.
7.Would resisting a tendency to use heuristics and stereotype others help human
flourishing? A large volume of literature suggests so. One directevidence comes from
the results of multiple studies that used the “jigsaw classroom” paradigm (e.g.,
Blaney et al., 1977; Lucker et al., 1977;Aronson et al., 1978). These studies were
designed based on the contact hypothesis in an effort to resolve the racialtensions
across the U.S. in the 1970s. In the “jigsaw classroom,” a diverse group of students
were instructed to learn from each other andcooperate on tasks that required
interdependence. Such close and respectful intergroup interactions resulted in a
remarkable decrease in negativeethnic stereotypes (Blaney et al., 1977; Geffner,
1978). Coupled with the reduction in stereotypes, students in the jigsaw classroom
showed betteracademic performance, greater liking of school, and higher
self-esteem than students in traditional classrooms. In particular, minority
studentsshowed a significant improvement in their performance, which effectively
narrowed the achievement gap between White and racial minoritystudents (Lucker
et al., 1977).
8.Benefits of reduced biases and stereotyping are not only apparent in individuals
who are the targets of stereotyping, but also those who engage inthe act of
stereotyping. A study by Prati and colleagues (2015) found that a thought exercise to
think about a gender counter-stereotype ledparticipants to display less
dehumanization of unrelated outgroups such as asylum seekers and the homeless. In
other words, the interventiontargeting stereotypes not only changed participants’
beliefs about the group in question, but also shifted their views on unrelated
groups.Importantly, this effect was explained by the reduced reliance on heuristics.
The finding suggests that interrupting heuristic thinking can enhancecognitive
flexibility in individuals by helping them adjust their prejudiced beliefs about a wide
range of social groups. Reduced stereotyping alsoopens individuals up to more
diverse perspectives that enable them to think more innovatively and attain
higher-quality solutions (Hoffman &Maier, 1961). These positive outcomes of the
reduced biases are shown to lead to measurable business outcomes. A study by the
BostonConsulting Group found that companies with more diverse leadership teams
reported higher revenue and “earnings before interest and taxes”(EBIT) margins
(Lorenzo et al., 2018). As such, reduced stereotyping, or the environment that
provides opportunities for reducing stereotypesthrough intergroup contact,
contributes to a greater flourishing of individuals and work groups.
9.Without a doubt, heuristic thinking is an evolutionarily adaptive tendency that
helps humans navigate the world under limited time and resources.However, it is
important to notice that it often leads humans to inaccurate beliefs about others as
illustrated by the examples of stereotyping. Basedon the empirical evidence from
social psychology, I proposed various ways that can help people resist the natural
tendency to rely on heuristicsand stereotypes. While we should continue using
heuristics under situational constraints, we should take a more analytic approach
and removepossible biases in our thinking when we can afford time and cognitive
efforts. Taking this balanced approach will have far- reaching positiveimplications for
individuals and society.
10.Humans are continuously evolving beings. If we remind ourselves that slowing
down at the right moment and checking our own biases can betterserve others and
ourselves, our beliefs about the world will gradually shift closer to the “true” state of
the world, making the society a more fairand just place than before.