People hold clear stereotypes about the extent to which different groups think in big picture terms or in detailed ways, with those who are wealthier, middle aged and/or more spiritual usually thought of as being more abstract thinkers, according to UCL School of Management Associate Professor Felix Danbold.
Co-authored alongside researchers from Columbia Business School and NYU, the research builds on existing Construal Level Theory, which explains that people alternate between abstract thinking – focusing on purpose and long-term goals – and concrete thinking – focusing on process and near-term tasks. Previous research has examined the impact of thinking abstractly or concretely on people’s behaviour.
The paper, published in Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, is the first to show that people hold broad stereotypes about construal level tendencies of different groups. The findings have potential impact on workplace hiring practices.
Typically, people stereotype those in higher socio-economic groups as tending to think more abstractly than people at the lower end of the scale. Children are stereotyped as thinking in more detailed (concrete) ways, with this assumed to increase and peak at middle age, before declining later in life.
Visionary roles, such as CEOs and other leaders, were assumed to be abstract thinkers, with more routine, blue collar roles such as factory workers stereotyped as concrete. The researchers note with interest that several high-status jobs such as police and firefighters were stereotyped as concrete thinkers.
Dr Danbold said: “We were amazed at how freely people shared and used these stereotypes. This suggests that most people don’t see a problem with making assumptions about a person’s thinking style based on their demographic background.
“Hopefully, this research will help people see that construal level stereotypes are a widespread problem, but also something we can address.”
Across five studies with 3,963 adults in the United States, the researchers measured and tested construal level stereotypes for groups spanning age, gender, religion, class, occupation, politics, as well as non-human categories such as animals and robots. Participants rated whether each group focuses more on the big picture (vs. the details), on why something is done (vs. how), and on long term goals (vs. short term goals).
They were then asked to shortlist employees for either a ‘big picture’ role or one requiring a detailed view of short-term goals and implementation.
The previously identified stereotypes appeared to shape people’s decisions in this role allocation. When choosing for the abstract role, people favoured former CEOs, people from upper class backgrounds, people in their forties and Buddhists. When choosing for the concrete role, people favoured support or administrative staff, firefighters, people from lower class backgrounds, atheists, and younger candidates.
These findings suggest that people infer how others think based on their group membership and then act on those inferences in decisions that matter. The authors also noted that participants were more selective when assigning people to abstract roles than to concrete roles, which may reflect that abstract cognition is seen as rarer or more valuable.
Felix Danbold continued, “It’s important that managers are aware of these biases when hiring. Every individual has capacity for both abstract and concrete thinking, but if managers allow these stereotypes to shape their decisions, people from groups seen as more concrete, which includes many already disadvantaged groups, may be overlooked for strategic planning roles or leadership tracks.”
