ABSTRACT
Whether it’s presidential dalliances, Taliban rulings, Teletubbies, altercations in the former Yugoslavia, individuals differ in their interpretations and evaluations of socio-moral events. Such moral conclusions vary according to the background knowledge and experience the interpreter brings to the situation. What are the factors that lead to these radically different understandings? What brought the Rev. Jerry Falwell to “besmirch” the reputation of the Teletubby, Tinky Winky? A cognitive psychological interpretation would be that Falwell has a general knowledge structure, or schema, for homosexuality (which he condemns) that Tinky Winky evoked (carries a purse, has a triangle on his head, and so must be gay). “Schema,” refers to a general knowledge structure in the mind, formed by repeated experience, and evoked by stimuli in the environment (Bartlett 1932). Repeating patterns in the world are encoded in memory as chunks of information, or schemas, that save repeated processing of previously experienced material. Over time, toddlers learn that an object with four legs, a seat and a back is a chair and is used for sitting. This knowledge is automatized so that older children don’t even think about the usage of such an object but automatically use it appropriately. What schemas do is enable the perceiver to identify stimuli quickly, fill in information missing from the stimulus configuration, and provide
guidance for obtaining further information, solving a problem, or reaching a goal. Schemas are tacitly and automatically invoked, working “behind the scenes.” The major tenet of schema theory is that people simplify reality by storing knowledge at a molar, inclusive level, rather than squirreling away, one by one, all the original individual facts of experience (Taylor and Crocker 1981, Fiske and Taylor 1991) for which there are not enough hours in the day!
