The Effects of Cognitive Load and Stereotyped Groups on Punitiveness

The current study explores the interactions of cognitive load and stereotypes on emotions felt toward stereotyped groups and decisions of punitiveness for a crime. Dual processing models suggest that cognitive load can decrease deliberation and increase intuitive and emotional judgments. The Stereotype Content Model suggests that different stereotyped groups evoke different emotions. The current study tested the hypothesis that individuals under high cognitive load will be more likely to rely on stereotypical information and associated emotions when making decisions on punishment for a crime. Study 1 had 205 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website complete an online survey in which they read a vignette about an elderly man, a man who receives welfare checks, or a neutrally described man, who commits a “hit and run” crime. Half of the participants were then put under cognitive load, and all participants completed questions on punitiveness for the character’s crime, emotions felt towards the character, and perceptions of warmth and competence in the character. Study 2 repeated the manipulations and measures of study 1 with a few changes and in a college lab setting. Results were inconclusive in both studies and the null hypothesis was retained. Methodological and theoretical reasons for these results are discussed. COGNITIVE LOAD, STEREOTYPED GROUPS, AND PUNITIVENESS 3 The Effects of Cognitive Load and Stereotyped Groups on Punitiveness Introduction Punitive decisions for marginalized out-groups seem to be harsher in America’s legal system, despite the court's having a commitment to unbiased administration of law. For example, white Jurors seem to assign higher guilt ratings to black defendants than white defendants in the absence of jury instructions, and the death sentence is applied more often when the victim of the crime is white (Sommers 2003). This phenomenon raises the question, what controllable variables increase or decrease biased decisions on punitiveness and moral judgment? How can we identify factors that increase bias in legal or social settings? The present research will seek to explore this problem by analyzing the relationships of cognitive load, stereotyped groups, and punitiveness. Cognitive load will be examined within the framework of a dual processing model, as a variable that encourages the use of intuitive judgments by inhibiting the use of cognitive resources needed for controlled reasoning. Next, the structure of stereotypes will be analyzed through the stereotype content model in order to theorize what effect different stereotypes will have on decisions of punitiveness. Finally, this study will attempt to experimentally test whether or not an increase in cognitive load increases the amount an individual uses stereotypical information to make decisions on punitiveness. This research thus hopes to identify one potential cause of human bias in moral and punitive decision making. Cognitive load is defined as a measure of the total amount of effort utilized by an individual’s working memory (Salkind, 2008). High cognitive load could interfere with COGNITIVE LOAD, STEREOTYPED GROUPS, AND PUNITIVENESS 4 an individual’s ability to make deliberate decisions through the absorption of cognitive resources. Thus, cognitive load may indirectly encourage the use of more intuitive judgments that do not require high levels of cognitive resources (Petty et al. 1986). One kind of intuitive decision made by individuals depends on the use of stereotypes. Stereotypes are often mixed sets of perceived traits that an individual associates with a group, and are often used to make quick judgments about an individual (Fiske et al. 2002, Macrae et al. 1994). Thus, higher levels of cognitive load could increase the use of stereotypical information when making decisions. This study will investigate whether or not increased cognitive load causes individuals to rely more heavily on stereotypical information when considering punishment, and thus changes the amount of punishment assigned to different stereotyped groups for the same crime. This hypothesis could have serious implications for psychological research and applications in legal, school, and social settings. This research will help further our understanding of how cognitive processes interact with moral and punitive decision making models. Connecting research on punitiveness, cognitive load, and stereotypical information will provide an illustration of how several theoretical models interact within individual cognition in a single instance. This theoretical bridge will better enable the exploration of interactions between variables previously isolated within separate veins of research such as various forms of heuristics, influences on dual processes, and differed paradigms of moral judgment. This study’s implications could also affect how we seek to mitigate bias in educational, legal, and social environments. Common classroom stressors and distractions could be increasing the amount students apply heuristic judgments to COGNITIVE LOAD, STEREOTYPED GROUPS, AND PUNITIVENESS 5 coursework, and teachers under high stress could be more likely to show unfair discipline when controlling the class. Juries under high cognitive load could be more likely to make decisions of guilt or capital punishment based on superfluous information. Individuals could be less likely to marginalize social out-groups if their cognitive load is reduced. The ability to reduce biased decisions would be invaluable in education, law, and everyday life, as we seek to uphold critical thinking in the classroom, fairness in the courts, and understanding between social groups. Relevant Literature Bias in Punitive Decision Making. Several studies have demonstrated that bias is present in decisions of punitiveness both in research settings and real courts of law. However, its presence can be often difficult to detect. For example, judgments of guilt by white mock jurors do not seem to be affected by the race of the defendant if race issues in a case are easily salient. This could be because current American society upholds the values of egalitarianism, and individuals self-regulate personal biases when race is made obvious. However, bias among white jurors against black defendants becomes demonstrable in more ambiguous cases where the issue of race is not so prevalent (Sommers & Ellsworth 2000). Similar results were replicated by Sommers & Ellsworth (2001) who found that white jurors convicted, and suggested longer prison sentences for black defendants at a higher rate than white defendants when issues of race were not made salient. Older studies such as Foley & Chamblin (1982) and Sweeney & Haney (1992) also support this finding, suggesting that whites are more likely to vote to convict black defendants, as well as suggest higher prison times. These studies suggest that although people may be culturally COGNITIVE LOAD, STEREOTYPED GROUPS, AND PUNITIVENESS 6 averse to making decisions of punitiveness based on extraneous factors such as race, bias still exists in legal and punitive decision making. The Dual Process Model and Moral Judgment. In order to address the current research questions it is imperative to understand under what conditions humans are more likely to make biased decisions. The Elaboration Likelihood Model proposed by Richard Petty was the first major theoretical framework for a dual processing model. Petty’s book focused on when individuals were likely to be persuaded by a given argument, and found that humans tend to judge correctness by two unique “routes,” namely, the central route and the peripheral route. The central route, refers to deliberative cognitive processing, and is likely to be influenced by the quality of the argument. Conversely, the peripheral route refers to intuitive judgments that tend to be influenced by “peripheral cues” such as positive or negative affect, attractiveness, or the number of arguments present. Consequently, he argued that biased decisions were more likely to happen when individuals were using the peripheral route. But what determines which route an individual will use? Petty argued that individuals are more likely to be convinced by a logically sound argument when they have the time, responsibility, motivation, and cognitive resources to consider it thoroughly. Conversely, when an individual does not have time, responsibility, motivation, or cognitive resources, he or she will be more likely to use the peripheral route to form attitudes on the subject. This implies in general that when cognitive resources are applied an individual will process information centrally, however when cognitive resources are not applied decisions are often made through extraneous COGNITIVE LOAD, STEREOTYPED GROUPS, AND PUNITIVENESS 7 variables (Petty et al. 1986). These two “routes” can be thought of as systems of mental processing that have continued to be elaborated upon in recent literature. The dual processing model was explored by Morewedge and Kahneman who presented a dual-system model of reasoning consisting of system 1 and system 2 processing. Similar to Petty’s model, this study defines system 1 as an automatic operational reasoning that generates intuitive judgments, while system 2 is a conscious and controlled system that makes reason based judgments. However, this study further elaborated on system 1, identifying it with “associative memory,” and identifying three distinct features of the system that contribute to quick intuitive judgments. First, system 1 processing prefers stimulus with associative coherence, or a clear and “self-reinforcing pattern of reciprocal activation in associative memory” (Morewedge & Kahneman, (2010). This means that humans consistently refer to contextual memories, information, and emotions in order to better interpret the present situation, so we may associate a hut with “small” and an eagle with “large,” despite t