https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 54 Georgian Scientists Vol. 3 Issue 3, 2021 https://doi.org/10.52340/gs.2021.08.05 , https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-9319 ( ) . , . . . . ( , , , ), , . , , . , . : , , https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 55 . , . . . , , , , . , , , ? , , , , (Fiske 1988; Fiske and Pavelchak 1986; Fiske et al. 1987; Locksley, Hepburn and Ortiz 1982; Macrae and Bodenhausen 2001). , , „ “ (Fiske and Taylor 1984 ), ? ? ?. , , - , , - . (1986) , , . (2001) , , . : „ “ , , , . , , , . , - , (Fiske et al. 1987; Fiske and Pavelchak 1986). , , . : , „ “ , . , ( ) . , . , (Wittenbrink and Hilton 1997) , , , , , . https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 56 , „ “. , : , (Gawronski et al. 2003; Fiske and Neuberg 1990; Prato and Bargh 1991; Quinn, Mason and Macrae 2009). , . , , : (Andersen and Klatzky 1987; Kunda and Thagard 1996), ( , ), (Andersen and Klatzky 1987) . , , . (Kunda and Thagard, 1996) , - ), . , , , , (Kunda and Thagard 1996; Kunda, Sinclair and Griffin 1997). , , . , , - - (Kunda and Thagard 1996; Kunda, Sinclair and Griffin 1997). ? - . , - , . , , . , , , , , (Kunda and Thagard 1996; Kunda, Sinclair and Griffin 1997). , , ( ) . : , , , , . , , , . , https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 57 . 2016-2019 . , , , , , IT, . , , , - . , , - . , , , . , , . (Kunda & Thagard, 1996). , ) . , . . 1 , , . , . (Macrae and Bodenhausen 2001), . 27 i. . , ( , , , ( ) .), , , . 90 . 30 50 ), , 20 . . , , - ? ?). . . 10 . https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 58 . , - ( ), (IT). , : , , , „ “. , , , ( ) , , , 10 8 - , , , , , , , „ “ , . , , , . , - . 2 , , : ) ) , ( ). , ( , , IT, ) . , . . , , : , , , , ( , , ), , . , 20 . . , , . . , , . . , - . https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 59 . 220 (165 , 55 ). 20 . 42 . , . . - 18 - 23 . , . , ( 20 ) . 17% . 1 . 1. , , IT, IT 36–50 90% 51–60 41% 24% 58% 46%, / 33% 31.3%, 31.3%, 28.1%, 28.1%, 21.9 % / 39.4%, 52.8% 33.3%, 27.8% . 90.0 % 21-35 100.0% 52.6%, 36.9%, 47.4%, 36.8% 26.3% .23.7%, 23.7% 20% 39.0%, 25.0%, 19.4% 19.4% 69.0% . 16.7. % 36-50 78.6% 21–35 45.2% 67.5% 37.0%, 25.9%, 41.2% 20.6%, 50.0%, . / 52.4%, 31.0% 36-50 74.4% 21-35 28.2% 51 – 60 28.2% 37.5%, 30.0% 30.0%, - 25.0% 56.4% 46.2% - 23.5% , 23.5%, 20.6% 23.5%, 26.3% 36 – 50 .92.3% 21-25 . 33.3% 51-60 . 28.2% 51.3% .25.6% . 23.1% 100.%, 52.6%, 28.9% 34.5%, 31.0%, 31.0% 38.7%, 25.8% 3.2% : IBM SPSS, (Method: Between group linkage) https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 60 , , . , : , , , , , . , . 3 - . , , 8-11 , 1-4 , - 5-7 , . , , , , , , . , . , 290 . , , 224 (139 75 , 18-23 .) . 11 ( (+5) 1 , (-5) 11 ). , 95% 6.5% . ; , , - . , 290 , , IT- , . , , . , (1997) , , . , , . , , ( ), (S), , -1 +1 , 0 1. https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 61 11 , +5 -5. „ “ (8-11 ), „ “ (1-4) . 5-7 , , , . , , ( ) ( ). SPSS 20, (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization). , , P <.05 , . 44 ( . 2 3). https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 62 2. 44 , ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. FAC61 .. 549.388 4 137.347 268.853 000 FAC62 , 494.881 4 123.720 221028 .000 FAC63 170.186 4 42.547 49.999 .000 FAC64 ( ) 107.168 4 26.792 29.524 .000 FAC65 , 341.355 4 85.339 122.360 .000 FAC66 , ., , . 123.575 4 30.894 34.605 .000 FAC67 , , , , . 282.526 4 70.632 94.150 .000 FAC68 304.198 4 76.049 104.068 .000 FAC69 208.435 4 52.109 63.808 .000 FA 70 265.694 4 66.423 86.794 .000 FAC71 62.592 4 15.648 16.516 .000 FAC72 , 214.571 4 53.643 67.247 .000 FAC73 86.578 4 21.645 23.720 .000 FAC74 102.489 4 25.622 28.526 .000 FAC5 , , , , 57.267 4 14.317 15.035 .000 FAC6 / . 498.755 4 124.689 224.150 .000 FAC7 100.107 4 25.027 27.387 .000 FAC8 42.476 4 10.619 10.998 .000 FAC9 11.596 4 2.899 2.919 .020 FAC10 , 23.564 4 5.891 5.996 .000 FAC11 / 16.711 4 4.178 4.226 .002 FAC12 / 51.525 4 12.881 13.455 .000 FAC13 253.042 4 63.260 81.454 .000 FAC14 16.606 4 4.152 4.199 .002 FAC15 16.526 4 4.131 4.178 .002 FAC16 , 14.632 4 3.658 3.693 .005 FAC18 24.086 4 6.021 6.132 .000 FAC19 36 76.435 4 19.109 20.436 .000 FAC20 12.945 4 3.236 3.262 .011 FAC22 26.637 4 6.659 6.797 .000 FAC23 25.777 4 6.444 6.573 .000 FAC24 12.069 4 3.017 3.039 .017 FAC25 37.651 4 9.413 9.706 .000 FAC26 18.944 4 4.736 4.800 .001 FAC27 33.424 4 8.356 8.582 .000 FAC35 24.773 4 6.193 6.311 .000 FAC37 ( ) 64.593 4 16.148 17.076 .000 FAC38 24.920 4 6.230 6.349 .000 FAC39 41.075 4 10.269 10.622 .000 FAC40 15.514 4 3.879 3.919 .004 https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 63 FAC41 29.642 4 7.410 7.585 .000 FAC47 16.305 4 4.076 4.122 .003 FAC48 15.983 4 3.996 4.039 .003 FAC52 10.041 4 2.510 2.524 .039 3. 44 Eta Eta Squared Eta Eta Squared FAC61 .701 .491 FAC13 .476 .226 FAC62 .665 .442 FAC14 .122 .015 FAC63 .390 .152 FAC15 .122 .015 FAC64 .309 .096 FAC16 .114 .013 FAC65 .552 .305 FAC18 .147 .022 FAC66 .332 .110 FAC19 .261 .068 FAC67 .502 .252 FAC20 .108 .012 FAC68 .521 .272 FAC22 .154 .024 FAC69 .432 .186 FAC23 .152 .023 FA 70 .487 .237 FAC24 .104 .011 FAC71 .237 .056 FAC25 .183 .034 FAC72 .441 .194 FAC26 .130 .017 FAC73 .280 .078 FAC27 .173 .030 FAC74 .305 .093 FAC35 .149 .022 FAC5 .226 .051 FAC36 .034 .001 FAC6 .668 .446 FAC37 .240 .058 FAC7 .299 .089 FAC38 .149 .022 FAC8 .195 .038 FAC39 .192 .037 FAC9 .102 .010 FAC40 .118 .014 FAC10 .145 .021 FAC41 .163 .026 FAC11 .122 .015 FAC47 .121 .015 FAC12 .215 .046 FAC48 .120 .014 FAC52 .095 .009 https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 64 , ( P <.05 ) . : F (4,1115)= 1.60, p=.17> .05.; , F (4,1115)= .65, p=.62> .05; F (4,1115)= .49, p=.74> .05; F (4,1115)= 1.28, p=.28> .05; F (4,1115)= 2.30, p=.06> .06; F (4,1115)= 2.28, p=.06> .05; F (4,1115)= 1.77, p=.13> .05; F (4,1115)= 1.43, p=.21> .05; F (4,1115)= .61, p=.65> .05 . . , ( ) , 0.5 ii. , , - - ( . 4). https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 65 4. , , , IT- 44 ( ) . . it FAC61 .. 9 9 6 7 5 FAC62 , 9 9 9 9 6 FAC63 9 9 8 7 6 FAC64 ( ) 9 8 7 7 6 FAC65 , 9 3 7 6 6 FAC66 , ., , . 3 3 6 6 4 FAC67 , , , , . 4 4 6 8 5 FAC68 5 5 7 9 7 FAC69 3 3 6 8 6 FA 70 7 7 8 6 10 FAC71 7 8 9 7 9 FAC72 , 7 7 7 5 9 FAC73 8 8 7 6 9 FAC74 7 7 7 6 9 FAC5 , , , , 7 8 6 6 5 FAC6 / . 5 5 9 5 4 FAC7 7 6 6 6 8 FAC8 4 4 6 6 7 FAC9 8 8 8 5 8 FAC10 , 8 8 7 6 9 FAC11 / 6 6 6 6 8 FAC12 / 8 7 6 7 6 FAC13 9 7 9 7 6 FAC14 7 8 6 7 5 FAC15 6 6 4 4 4 FAC16 , 5 5 5 4 4 FAC18 6 6 6 8 8 FAC19 36 9 9 8 6 9 FAC20 4 4 5 4 7 FAC22 7 7 8 8 9 FAC23 8 8 6 7 9 FAC24 5 6 6 7 6 FAC25 6 6 6 7 6 FAC26 7 6 7 6 7 FAC27 8 8 8 7 9 FAC35 7 7 7 7 7 FAC37 ( ) 6 6 7 9 8 FAC38 4 4 5 4 3 FAC39 8 7 8 6 7 FAC40 7 8 7 7 8 FAC41 6 5 6 6 5 FAC47 8 9 8 7 8 FAC48 7 7 7 8 6 FAC52 7 7 7 6 6 , . , , , , , , , . , ) 5-7 ) 1-4 https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 66 , ). , , , , . , ( ), ; , . , . , , , . , , , , , , , , . , , , , , . , - , , , , . , ( ), , ( , , , , , ); , ; , , , . . , IT - . IT , , , ; , , . . IT , . 11 . , 18-23 . , , - , , . , , . , ( ), , , . . , , - https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 67 , . IT- , . , , , . , , . , . , . , , , , , . , , . , , . , . , , , . , , , . , . , , , . , , , . , . , , , . , , . , , - IT- . , , . , , - ), (FAC 41 - 6 ) ). , , , . https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 68 100% , . , , . , , . : 1. Andersen, Susan M., & Roberta L. Klatzky. (1987). Traits and Social Stereotypes: Levels of Categorization in Person Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 2, 235-246 2. Fiske, Susan Tufts, & Shelley E. Taylor. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. 3. Fiske, Susan Tufts, and Mark Pavelchak. “Category Based Versus Piecemeal Based Affective Responses: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect.” In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Ed. R.M. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgins. 167-203 . New York: Guilford Press, 1986. 4. Fiske, Susan Tufts, Steven Neuberg, Ann E. Beattie, and Sandra J. Milberg. “Category-based and attribute- based reactions to others: Some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 23, no 5 , (1987): 399-427 5. Fiske, Susan Tufts. “Compare and Contrast: Brewer’s Dual Process Model and Fiske et al.’s Continuum Model.” In Advances in Social Cognition Vol 1, Ed. T.K. Srull & R.S. Wyer Jr. 65-76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988. 6. Gawronski, Bertram, Katja Ehrenberg, Rainer Banse, Johanna Zukova, & Christoph Klauer. (2003). It’s in the Mind of the Beholder: The Impact of Stereotypic Associations on Category-Based and Individuating Impression Formation. Journal of experimental Social Psychology, 39, 16-30 7. Kunda, Ziva, and Paul Thagard. “Forming Impression from Stereotypes, Traits, and Behaviors: a Parallel - Constraint – Satisfaction Theory.” Psychological Review 103, no 2(1996): 294-308 8. Kunda, Ziva, Lisa Sinclair and Dale Griffin. “Equal Rating but Separate Meanings: Stereotypes and the Construal of Traits.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, no 4 (1997): 720-734 9. Locksley, Anne, Christine Hepburn, and Vilma Ortiz. “Social Stereotypes and Judgments of Individuals: An instance of the Base Rated Fallacy.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, no 18 (1982): 23-42 10. Macrae, C. Neil, & Calen, V. Bodenhausen. (2001). Social Cognition: Categorical Person Perception. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239-255 11. Pratto, Felicia, & John A. Bargh. (1991). Stereotyping Based on Apparently Individuating Information: Trait and Global Components of Sex Stereotypes under Attention Overload. The Journal of experimental Social Psychology, 27, 26-47 12. Quinn, Kimberly, Malia Mason, & Macrae, C. Neil. (2009). Familiarity and Person Construal: Individuating Knowledge Moderates the Automaticity of Category Activation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 852-861 13. Wittenbrink, Bernd, Pamela L. Gist, and James L. Hilton. “Structural properties of stereotypic knowledge and their influences on the construal of social situations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, no 3 (1997): 526-543 i , . https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GS/index 69 ii , , . SOCIAL STEREOTYPES AND COGNITIVE MECHANISM OF THEIR PROCESSING Miranda Giorgashvili Full professor, Tbilisi Open Teaching University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-9319 A B S T R A C T Given study tests cognitive model related to social information processing - Parallel Constraint Satisfaction Theory. The study was conducted as one of the research steps within another scientific project, which explored stereotypic mode of impression formation. Unlike other models, PCST presents stereotypic mode of thinking as the process, in which received information just as a neural impulse flows in the endless web of mental associations in observer’s mind and automatically acxites/inhibites certain information stored in there. We decided to test these two cognitive processes on the content of real social stereotypes. We explored stereotypes of five social categories (Cook, Lecturer, Doctor, IT and Typical Georgian Man). Then, we measured the level of acxitation/inhibition of certain characteristics within the stereotype of each category. After comparing the level of character activation-deactivation between each category, as well as to the textual characterizations obtained from focus groups about the same categories, it became clear that activation/deactivation process indeed takes place. Moreover, associations activate/deactivate in such a way, that they automatically fit (satisfy) the content of stereotype, held by the observer about perceived social category. Keywords: Stereotypic thinking, Information processing, Impression formation