> A student asked me what the difference is between schemas and stereotypes?
The way I explained it to my students is as follows:
A schema is a mental categorization of information and often helps us
screen relevant info for our purpose out of all potential info/input
(e.g., an architect looking at a house may particularly attend to both
aesthetic and structural components of the house, a burglar would be
likely to ignore both (particularly the aesthetic) and focus, instead, on
security aspects (locks, security systems, light, etc.)).
Stereotypes would be one form of a social schema. Social schemas often
help us categorize people and/or attend to important
information. (Example of the former: indications that someone is shy
vs. outgoing; example of the latter: attending to intelligence, class
attendance, and comprehension of abstract material when looking for a
study partner (the "study buddy" schema) vs. attending to spontaneity,
energy, extroversion, humor and perhaps creativity for a friend to have
fun with (perhaps, instead, the "drinking buddy" schema)).
Stereotypes could be conceptualized as a form of a social schema used to
easily categorize people and provide default information. In some
contexts, they may be true (expecting athletes to be strong/healthy,
professors to be intelligent, salesman to be gregarious, etc.), though you
can mistakenly assume too much about a person dependent upon their
category. I think the true sensitivity and controversy occurs when people
use stereotypes in a negative way (e.g., assuming African-Americans are
less intelligent, Asian Americans are not socially skilled, any member of
a fraternity is an alcoholic, etc.). I think most people think of these
negative situations when considering the idea of "stereotypes," but I
could also see how they could be quite useful mental shortcuts in other
situations (e.g., assuming that, since a person is a graduate student,
they are likely sleep-deprived and have excessive amounts of work :-) ).
> Last week we were discussing various disorders and the book defines
> schizophrenia as a "...serious mental disorder that lasts for about six
> months and includes..." A student asked why the disorder only lasts for
> six months and what happens after that period of time?
The symptoms for schizophrenia must exist for six months before the actual
diagnosis can be given. Similar symptoms lasting from 1 to 6 months
constitute a diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder, from 1 day to 1 month
constitute a diagnosis of Brief Psychotic Disorder (there are other
differences between these diagnoses than just duration, however, including
much less social/occupation impairment, if any).
In the United States, in my understanding, Schizophrenia is typically a
chronic condition (one that can be treated, but not cured). In other
parts of the world, however (particularly Asia), it more often dissipates
with time. Whether this is due to some difference in the diagnosis and
interpretation of symptoms, cultural differences in views about psychotic
experiences (e.g., it's much more socially acceptable in some cultures as
it denotes a link to spirits, and can therefore be beneficial at times),
some actual genetic/biological differences in how individuals in the
States and Europe vs. other parts of the world experience the disorder
remains a bit unclear to me, though.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to let me know if you have further
questions, as I'm actually working in a practicum with an expert in
Schizophrenia at this time (David Penn).
TAke Care,
Matt
