ABSTRACT
Why are schemas so dif®cult to change? What explains their tenaciousness? For one thing, schemas tend to be selfperpetuating. People tend to rely on their existing schemas to make sense of new information, a process that Jean Piaget (1955) called assimilation. Only when information is so discrepant that it can no longer be assimilated into existing schemas are people forced to modify their schemas, a complementary process known as accommodation (Piaget, 1955). Thus, schemas are inherently conservative. People tend to hold onto their existing views of themselves, other people, and the world, despite contradictory evidence. Moreover, schemas ®lter the information we receive (Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2003; Young et al., 2003). We focus on information that is consistent with our schemas, and tend to ignore or disregard that which is inconsistent. For example, Sara, a woman with a strong Defectiveness schema, felt sure that her friends didn't really like her, despite the abundant evidence that they valued her for her warmth, caring, loyalty, and generosity. Instead, she focused on her shortcomings, and discounted the positive feedback she received from others (e.g., ``If they really knew me well, they'd think otherwise'').
