Formation Of Seterotypes: Hamilton and Gifford's (1976) and Hillard and Liben (2010)

Hamilton and Gifford (1976) showed that stereotypes can form through illusory correlations, where people link negative behaviors to minority groups despite no actual correlation. Hillard and Liben (2010) focused on how observational learning influences the formation of gender-role stereotypes in children, demonstrating that exposure to media shapes their perceptions of appropriate behaviors. Both studies highlight that stereotypes are not just cognitive biases but are also socially learned from the environment.

Aim

To investigate how social category salience affects the development of stereotypes and inter-group behavior in elementary school children, based on Social Identity Theory.

Participants

Fifty-seven US children aged 3 years 1 month to 5 years 6 months from two preschools participated in the study. Each school had an equal number of male and female children.

Procedure

Children completed a gender attitude test (POAT-AM) to measure their "gender flexibility" by indicating which gender should perform certain activities.

Their play behavior was observed to determine the extent of interaction with same-sex and opposite-sex peers.

Preschools were randomly assigned to either a high salience condition or a low salience condition.

In the high salience condition, children were made aware of their gender through various cues like lining up by sex and gender-specific language.

In the low salience condition, no changes were made to the classroom environment.

The study lasted for two weeks, after which the children were debriefed to counteract any increase in stereotyping.

Results

After two weeks, children in the high salience condition showed significantly increased gender stereotypes and decreased play with other-sex peers.

In the low salience condition, there was no significant change in play behavior or gender stereotypes.

Strengths

Experimental design allowed for the manipulation of the independent variable in the children's natural environment.

The study demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between social category salience and the development of stereotypes and inter-group behavior.

Field experiment design provided high ecological validity.

Weaknesses

The study suffers from sampling bias, as participants were most likely middle to upper-class children from preschools with gender-neutral policies.

The study's low internal validity due to the inability to strictly control the environment.

Ethical concerns about potential harm to the children's behavior, although debriefing was provided to mitigate negative effects.

Aim of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

The aim of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976) study was to investigate how an illusory correlation between group size and negative behavior might occur, particularly when the minority group (Group B) is associated with negative actions despite no actual correlation.

Procedure of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

Participants were introduced to two fictional groups: Group A: A larger group with 26 members. Group B: A smaller group with 13 members. Descriptions: Participants read descriptions of both groups, where each group exhibited a mix of positive and negative behaviors: Group A: 18 positive behaviors and 8 negative behaviors. Group B: 9 positive behaviors and 4 negative behaviors. Despite the differences in group size and the types of behaviors described, the actual correlation between group membership and behavior type was nonexistent.

Results Of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

Illusory correlation: Participants attributed more negative behaviors to Group B (the minority group) than to Group A (the majority group). Even though Group B’s total number of negative behaviors was lower than that of Group A, the combination of Group B's smaller size and the negative behaviors made them stand out more in the participants' perceptions.

Conclusion Of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

The study demonstrated the phenomenon of illusory correlation, where participants mistakenly associated the minority group (Group B) with more negative behaviors, even though the actual data showed no such correlation. This study highlights how distinctiveness—in this case, the minority group’s smaller size and fewer positive behaviors—can distort perceptions and reinforce stereotypes about groups. It provides insight into how cognitive biases, such as illusory correlation, can influence people’s stereotypical thinking and the way they perceive different social groups.

strenght of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

• Applicability to Minority Groups: The research helps explain why negative stereotypes tend to be more prevalent for minority groups compared to majority groups, highlighting the role of social categorization and bias in shaping societal views.

• Impact on Policy: The findings have practical applications, such as influencing policies where race or ethnicity of offenders is no longer reported in certain countries, reducing potential stereotyping and bias.

Limitation of Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)

• Artificiality of the Task: The methodology, such as showing slides, does not replicate real-life scenarios where stereotypes are more deeply ingrained and influenced by complex social interactions.

• Limited Real-World Validity: The simplified experimental setup might not capture the nuanced ways stereotypes are formed and perpetuated in naturalistic environments, reducing ecological validity.

Evaluation

In terms of the formation of stereotypes, both Hamilton and Gifford (1976) and Hillard and Liben (2010) contribute valuable insights. Hamilton and Gifford's study (1976) explored the illusory correlation phenomenon, where participants developed negative stereotypes about a minority group based on a disproportionate association between undesirable behavior and the minority group. This highlights how stereotypes can form due to cognitive biases, such as overgeneralization, even when no real correlation exists. Hillard and Liben (2010) examined the impact of gender-role stereotypes and how children’s perceptions of gender-appropriate behavior were shaped through media exposure. Their research emphasized how social cognitive theory explains the role of observational learning in the formation of stereotypes, as children internalize gender expectations from observing models in their environment. Both studies illustrate how stereotypes can emerge through both cognitive biases and social learning, reinforcing the notion that stereotypes are not only cognitive constructs but also socially learned behaviors influenced by exposure to societal norms and media representations.

Study 2

Hillard and Liben (2010)

Study 1

Hamilton and Gifford's (1976)