Ethnic stereotypes, cognitive style and mutual classification of national characteristics of an individual

Table 1
The complexity levels of the cognitive spaces of Russian and Uzbek respondents (According to the 
research of B. Botirov)
National
Groups
Russian women
13
I
12
I
I
4
I
4
II
I
Uzbek women
14
11
I
II
6
6
I
Russian Men
13
I
12
I
I
4
I
5
II
Uzbek Men
12
II
13
I
6
6
I
N. Leventhal and D. Zinger made an interesting hypothesis about the differences between cognitively simple 
and cognitively complex individuals. They mentioned specific aspects of the knowledge of the subjects in either
category. In particular, cognitively naive people tend to focus on personality traits that testify to a person’s 
competence because they are interested in other people’s intellectual abilities and capabilities [2].
Cognitively complex individuals, on the other hand, tend to take into account the individual's specific 
characteristics, primarily those that determine his or her uniqueness. V. Pouers, on the other hand, proved that 
cognitively complex students are perceived as more socially acceptable, and that cognitively simple individuals are 
preferred in work-related relationships. M.A. Xolodnaya believes that extreme manifestations of cognitive 
complexity are probably the result of poor functioning of categorical control mechanisms [4]. Such people are not 
able to reconstruct the whole picture of what is happening, so their mental representations are fragmented.
Ultimately, unexpectedly mutually contradictory descriptions of cognitively complex individuals occur. For 
example, a number of studies have reported that the maximum level of cognitive complexity is correlated with the 
maximum level of anxiety. According to A. L. Yujaninova: "The main motive for communicating with other people 
is anxiety." According to him, while cognitively simple students were the initiators of 20% of conflicts, cognitively 
complex students were the initiators of conflicts and were involved in 4% of such conflicts. There are also studies 
proving that cognitive complexity is a hypercompensatory product of latent aggression [3].
The results of the study to some extent confirm the above scientific facts. The study explores not only the 
realm of cognitive complexity and simplicity, but also the realm of concreteness and abstraction.
O. Harvey, D. Hunt, and G. Schroder describe the nature of a concept as follows: for them a concept - is a 
tendency to evaluate according to some individuum and to see the surrounding image according to one’s own 
personality, character and desires. Since concreteness and abstraction are formal structural features of the field of 
knowledge, they have brightly expressed adaptive functions. As a result, concrete and abstract conceptualization of 
events began to be studied as poles of cognitive style [4].