VUCA

Volatility is the V component of VUCA, which refers to the different situational social-categorizations of people due to specific traits or reactions that stand out in particular situations. When people act based on a specific situation, there is a possibility that the public categorizes them into a different group than they were in a previous situation. These people might respond differently to individual situations due to social or environmental cues. The idea that situational occurrences cause certain social categorization is known as volatility and is one of the main aspects of self-categorization theory.[14]

Sociologists use volatility to better understand the impacts of stereotypes and social categorization on the situation at hand and any external forces that may cause people to perceive others differently. Volatility is the changing dynamic of social categorization in environmental situations. The dynamic can change due to any shift in a situation, whether social, technical, biological or anything. Studies have been conducted, but finding the specific component that causes the change in situational social categorization has proven challenging.[15]

Two separate components connect people to social identities. The first social cue is normative fit. This describes how a person relates to the stereotypes and norms that others associate with their specific identity. For example, when a Hispanic woman is cleaning the house, most of the time, people connect gender stereotypes with this situation, while her ethnicity is not concerned, but when this same woman eats an enchilada, ethnicity stereotypes surface while her gender is not concerned.[14] The second social cue is comparative fit. This is when a specific characteristic or trait of a person is prominent in certain situations compared to others. For example, as mentioned by Bodenhausen and Peery, when there is one woman in a room full of men.[14] She stands out, because she is the only one of her gender. However, all of the men are clumped together because they do not have any specific traits that stand out. Comparative fit shows that people categorize others based on the relative social context. In a particular situation, particular characteristics are made obvious because others around that individual do not possess that characteristic. However, in other cases, this characteristic may be the norm and would not be a key characteristic in the categorization process.[14]

People can be less critical of the same person in different scenarios. For example, when looking at an African American man on the street of a low-income neighborhood and the same man inside a school in a high-income neighborhood, people will be less judgmental when seeing him in school. Nothing else has changed about this man, other than his location.[14] When individuals are spotted in certain social contexts, the basic-level categories are forgotten, and the more partial categories are brought to light. This helps to describe the problems of situational social-categorization.[14] This also illustrates how stereotypes can shift the perspectives of those around an individual.[14]

Uncertainty in the VUCA framework occurs when the availability or predictability of information in events is unknown. Uncertainty often occurs in volatile environments consisting of unanticipated interactions that are complex. Uncertainty may occur in the intention to imply causation or correlation between the events of a social perceiver and a target. Situations where there is either a lack of information to prove why a perception is in occurrence or informational availability but lack of causation, are where uncertainty is salient.[14]

The uncertainty component of the framework serves as a grey area and is compensated by the use of social categorization and/or stereotypes. Social categorization can be described as a collection of people that have no interaction but tend to share similar characteristics. People tend to engage in social categorization, especially when there is a lack of information surrounding the event. Literature suggests that default categories tend to be assumed in the absence of any clear data when referring to someone's gender or race in the essence of a discussion.[14]

Individuals often associate general references (e.g. people, they, them, a group) with the male gender, meaning people = male. This usually occurs when there is insufficient information to distinguish someone's gender clearly. For example, when discussing a written piece of information, most assume the author is male. If an author's name is unavailable (due to lack of information), it is difficult to determine the gender of the author through the context of whatever was written. People automatically label the author as male without having any prior basis of gender, thus placing the author in a social category. This social categorization happens in this example, but people will also assume someone is male if the gender is not known in many other situations as well.[14]

Social categorization occurs in the realm of not only gender, but also race. Default assumptions may be made, like in gender, to the race of an individual or a group based on prior known stereotypes. For example, race-occupation combinations such as basketball or golf players usually receive race assumptions. Without any information on the individual's race, people usually assume a basketball player is black, and a golf player is white. This is based upon stereotypes because each sport tends to be dominated by a single race. In reality, there are other races within each sport.[14]

Complexity is the “C” component of VUCA, which refers to the interconnectivity and interdependence of multiple parts in a system. When conducting research, complexity is a component that scholars have to keep in mind. The results of a deliberately controlled environment are unexpected because of the non-linear interaction and interdependencies within different groups and categories.[15]

In a sociological aspect, the VUCA framework is utilized in research to understand social perception in the real world and how that plays into social categorization and stereotypes. Galen V. Bodenhausen and Destiny Peery's article, Social Categorization and Stereotyping In vivo: The VUCA Challenge, focused on researching how social categories impacted the process of social cognition and perception.[14] The strategy used to conduct the research is to manipulate or isolate a single identity of a target while keeping all other identities constant. This method clearly shows how a specific identity in a social category can change one's perception of other identities, thus creating stereotypes.[14]

There are problems with categorizing an individual's social identity due to the complexity of an individual's background. This research fails to address the complexity of the real world and the results from this highlighted an even great picture of social categorization and stereotyping.[14] Complexity adds many layers of different components to an individual's identity and creates challenges for sociologists trying to examine social categories.[15] In the real world, people are far more complex than a modified social environment. Individuals identify with more than one social category, which opens the door to a more profound discovery about stereotyping. Results from research conducted by Bodenhausen reveal that specific identities are more dominant than others.[14] Perceivers who recognize these distinct identities latch on to it and associate their preconceived notion of such identity and make initial assumptions about the individuals and hence stereotypes are created.

On the other hand, perceivers who share some identities with the target become more open-minded. They also take into consideration more than one social identity at the same time and this is also known as cross-categorization effects.[16] Some social categories are embedded in a larger categorical structure, which makes that subcategory even more crucial and outstanding to perceivers. Research on cross-categorization reveals that different types of categories can be activated in the mind of the social perceiver, which causes both positive and negative effects. A positive outcome is that perceivers are more open-minded despite other social stereotypes. They have more motivation to think deeply about the target and see past the most dominant social category. Bodenhausen also acknowledges that cross-categorization effects lead to social invisibility.[14] Some types of cross-over identities may lessen the noticeability of other identities, which may cause targets to be subjected to “intersectional invisibility,” [17] where neither social identities have a distinct component and are overlooked.

Ambiguity is the “A” component of VUCA. This refers to when the general meaning of something is unclear even when an appropriate amount of information is provided. Many get confused about the meaning of ambiguity. It is similar to the idea of uncertainty, but they have different factors. Uncertainty is when relevant information is unavailable and unknown, and ambiguity where relevant information is available but the overall meaning is still unknown. Both uncertainty and ambiguity exist in our culture today. Sociologists use ambiguity to determine how and why an answer has been developed. Sociologists focus on details such as if there was enough information present and if the subject had the full knowledge necessary to make a decision. and why did he/she come to their specific answer.[14]

Ambiguity is considered one of the leading causes of conflict within organizations.[18]

Ambiguity leads people to assume an answer, and many times this leads assuming ones race, gender, or sexual orientation and can even lead to class stereotypes. Suppose a person has some information but still does not have the overall answer. In that case, the person starts to assume his/her own answer based on the relevant information he/she already possesses. For example, as mentioned by Bodenhausen, we may occasionally encounter people who are sufficiently androgynous to make it difficult to ascertain their gender, and at least one study suggests that with brief exposure, androgynous individuals can sometimes be miscategorized based on gender-atypical features (very long hair, for a man, or very short hair, for a woman). Ambiguity leads to categorizing people without further important details, which could lead to untrue conclusions.[14]

Sociologists believe ambiguity can lead to race stereotypes and discrimination. In a study undertaken in South Africa by three sociologists, the researchers had white citizens of South Africa look at pictures of racially mixed faces, and they had to decide whether these faces were European or African. Because these test subjects were all white, they had difficulty defining these mixed-race faces as European and deemed them all African. The reason they did this was attributed to ambiguity. The available information was the skin tone of the people in the pictures and their facial qualities; with this information, the test subjects had all of that information available but still did not know the answer. They assumed they could not be European because they did not look exactly like them.[14]