By delving into and categorizing the different treatments, Social psychologists test and arrive at conclusions of socially helpful interventions and treatments. Other professionals such as social workers and therapists can then incorporate these treatments in their practices whilst policy makers can formulate laws (if applicable) incorporating them into the institution.

A) select one that makes use of the distinction between automatic cognitive-processes and controlled processing, and by using that article explain why that-distinction is important in current social psychological research. Are the methods-used to measure these two processes different? If so, how and why? (Do not-forget to cite the title of the article.)

Payne (2006) dwells on implicit and instinctive bias that compels people to make snap judgeship. These judgments can sometimes be dangerous and self if not socially destructive such as race stereotypes that can lead people to see a weapon where none exists and can result in faulty and harmful decision making on the part of police officers and other authorities that interact with racial minorities.

Sometimes, this bias even exists unintentionally and unconsciously amongst those who are unaware of their bas and/or trying to quell it. Distinction, therefore, between automatic cognitive processes and controlled processing is immense in that, in the first case, the processing is instinctive and largely unknown to us, a nd, in the second, it may be controlled encouraging people to monitor, regulate and assess their prejudices (and other emotions).

Different methods are used to investigate both.

In the first case, tests such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) are selected in order to assess whether unconscious prejudice exists. In he second case, popular tests such as the Modern Racist Index are used where the attitude is known and observed by the participant. The latter is a survey that relies on participant to know the response. The former premises its test on the assumption that prejudice...

Even more interesting was the fact that sometimes participants announced that they saw weapons when none in reality existed.
There are, a t least, however three limitations with this study: it was not randomized rather being a convenience sample. Secondly we do not know the amount of participants nor anything of the participants -- they may well have been less than a handful, overtly already prejudiced, and all White; lastly they were from one location in one space of time. A longitudinal and cross-sectional study may have had more impact.

Sources

Brewer, M.B., Brown, R..J., Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., & Lindzey, G. (2003). The handbook of social psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S.T., & Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1-74.

Legault, L. et al. (2011) Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice Psychological Science 22(12) 1472

Oskamp, S. (2000). Multiple paths to reducing prejudice and discrimination, Psychology Press: U.S.

Paluck, E.L., & Green, D.P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367.

Payne, BK (2006) Weapon Bias

Split-Second Decisions and Unintended Stereotyping CURRENT DIRECTIONS in PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 15, 6