Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:15:18.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The labelled container: Conceptual development of social group representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Rebekah A. Gelpi Open the ORCID record for Rebekah A. Gelpi [Opens in a new window] ,
Suraiya Allidina ,
Daniel Hoyer  and
William A. Cunningham
Rebekah A. Gelpi
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ONM5S 3G3Canada rebekah.gelpi@mail.utoronto.ca suraiya.allidina@mail.utoronto.ca wil.cunningham@utoronto.ca
Suraiya Allidina
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ONM5S 3G3Canada rebekah.gelpi@mail.utoronto.ca suraiya.allidina@mail.utoronto.ca wil.cunningham@utoronto.ca
Daniel Hoyer
Affiliation:
Evolution Institute & Center for Preparatory and Liberal Studies, George Brown College, Toronto, ON M5A 3W8, Canada dhoyer@evolution-institute.org
William A. Cunningham
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ONM5S 3G3Canada rebekah.gelpi@mail.utoronto.ca suraiya.allidina@mail.utoronto.ca wil.cunningham@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pietraszewski contends that group representations that rely on a “containment metaphor” fail to adequately capture phenomena of group dynamics such as shifts in allegiances. We argue, in contrast, that social categories allow for computationally efficient, richly structured, and flexible group representations that explain some of the most intriguing aspects of social group behaviour.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e108
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baron, A. S., Dunham, Y., Banaji, M., & Carey, S. (2014). Constraints on the acquisition of social category concepts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 238–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.742902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, L. P., & Markman, E. M. (2014). Preschoolers use pedagogical cues to guide radical reorganization of category knowledge. Cognition, 130(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalik, L., & Rhodes, M. (2018). Learning about social category-based obligations. Cognitive Development, 48, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalik, L., & Rhodes, M. (2020). Groups as moral boundaries: A developmental perspective. In Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 58, pp. 63–93). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2020.01.003.Google Scholar
Cunningham, W. A., Van Bavel, J. J., & Johnsen, I. R. (2008). Affective flexibility: Evaluative processing goals shape amygdala activity. Psychological Science, 19(2), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/e617962012-341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunbar, R. (2010). How many friends does one person need?: Dunbar's number and other evolutionary quirks. Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Foster-Hanson, E., & Rhodes, M. (2019). Normative social role concepts in early childhood. Cognitive Science, 43(8), e12782. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gavrilets, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2017). Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(23), 6068–6073. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703857114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A., Ware, E. A., & Kleinberg, F. (2010). Effects of generic language on category content and structure. Cognitive Psychology, 61(3), 273–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.06.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00585.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lew-Levy, S., Lavi, N., Reckin, R., Cristóbal-Azkarate, J., & Ellis-Davies, K. (2018). How do hunter-gatherer children learn social and gender norms? A meta-ethnographic review. Cross-Cultural Research, 52(2), 213–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117723552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Gelman, S. A., & Ho, A. K. (2017a). So it is, so it shall be: Group regularities license children's prescriptive judgments. Cognitive Science, 41(S3), 576–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Ho, A. K., & Gelman, S. A. (2017b). Group presence, category labels, and generic statements influence children to treat descriptive group regularities as prescriptive. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 158, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverna, A. S., Padilla, M. I., Baiocchi, M. C., & Peralta, O. A. (2021). Collaborative pedagogy: 3-year-olds bring pedagogical cues into alignment with analogical reasoning to extract generic knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(2), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00475-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2012). A social identity approach to person memory: Group membership, collective identification, and social role shape attention and memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1566–1578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212455829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2011). Modulation of the fusiform face area following minimal exposure to motivationally relevant faces: Evidence of in-group enhancement (not out-group disregard). Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3343–3354. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar