13C (Hamilton & Gifford: Illusory correlations: 1976)

Background- social cognition

Walter Lippmann (1922)

• limited information processing capacity in humans

we avoid information overload by:

1. summarising information

2. selecting information

3. generalising- avoiding detailed info

these form the hallmarks for stereotyping!

paradigm shift

1970’s cognitive psychologists turn to social phenomena

basic premise:

people are ‘cognitive misers’

• faulty information processing due to limited capacity

aim of social cognition

social phenomena can be explained without political and sociological theories but with social cognition instead

• stripped back to the smallest unit of the brain and perception system

questions surrounding stereotypes

1. why are there so many negative views of ethic minorities?

2. why do so many different people share the same negative views?

3. could it be the same cognitive mechanism?

what did Hamilton and Gifford suggest

as a consequence of the need to simplify, we only pay attention to the things that demand attention

• some things grab our attention by being distinctive

• distinctive is often novel and rare (rather than common)

• statistical infrequency may bias thinking by creating distinctiveness

if you combine novelty and rarity create

illusory correlation

Loren & Jean Chapman (1967) first use of this term

• refers to unrelated clinical concepts that are seen as related because they were expected to relate to each other (self-fulfilling prophecy)

how did Hamilton and Gifford use this concept

not creating it, you are noticing it

• minority groups are, by definition rare (statistically speaking)

• undesirable behaviour is distinct (outside the social norms= rare)

• negative behaviour by minority groups is doubly distinct and particularly attention grabbing

  → more likely to remember these two things together

attention grabbing information gets stored in memory

The study (1)- design

39 statements that described positive or negaitve behaviours shown by group A or group B

told: ‘as in the real world, group B is smaller than group A, so there will be fewer statements about group B’

• 26 statements about group A, 13 about group B

• 27 statements about positive behaviour, 12 about negative behaviour

• 9:4 ratio desirable: undesirable fro both groups

prediction for study 1

• rare/distinct characteristics better remembered

• minority members of group B are rare (13 vs 26)

• undesirable behaviour is more distinct (12 vs 27 statements)

so the following hypothesis derived → participants rate group B more negatively than group A, despite the ratio desirable : undesirable being the same

= illusory correlation

what did they measure?

1. assignment task- all 39 behaviours are presented and participants asked to say whether the behaviour was shown by a member of group A or B

2. frequency estimation- how many negative behaviours performed by group A and B

   • correlation coefficient >0 → illusory correlation

3. trait ratings- group A and B are rated in a number of trait dimensions (e.g. popularity, intelligence)

1 & 2 test memory, 3 measures stereotype judgement

findings

assignment estimates:

Group A:

• correct for desirable

• underestimate undesirable- actual → 8, estimate → 5.79

Group B:

• correct for desirable

• overestimate undesirable- actual → 4, estimate → 6.21

frequency estimates:

Group A → correct

Group B → underestimate desirable and overestimate undesirable

study 2

switched the desirable behaviour and undesirable behaviour frequency

• testing the novelty and rarity hypothesis or whether its just more interesting

findings for study 2

same results:

desirable behaviour is underestimated in group A (5.87, actual 8) and overestimated in group B (6.13, actual 4)

• shows statistically infrequent behaviour is more frequently remembered for the minority group, not just the behaviour

illusory correlation is due to rarity, not desirability!!

Debate and controversy- explaining stereotypes

illusory correlations do not explain stereotypes in real life (lack external validity)

• stereotypes are often very specific rather than a positive/negative evaluation of a group in relation to another group

• we often do not encounter groups we know nothing about except what the individual members do

what else can be argued

may be a mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968)

• grater frequency of group A members leads to familiarity which leads to liking

• but this does not explain study 2 findings- when desirable behaviour is rare, group B are perceived as nice

conceptual criticism

distinctiveness may not be the key explanatory feature:

• the skewed distribution and the statistical infrequency may explain findings

Fiedler

• random information loss likely because of a large number of behaviours that need to be remembered

• random information loss will disadvantage small groups

even simpler suggestion to random information loss

Smith (1991)

• participants focus on the absolute number creates an overly positive (study 1) or overly negative (study 2) impression

• who has the highest number?- group A desirable (1) or undesirable (2)

meaning-based explanation

McGarthy et al (1993)- base don self-categorisation theory

• participants will try to find out how the groups differ (find the ‘differentiated meaning’)

• we are motivated to distinguish- there is support to see group A as positive (18-8) but not much about group B (9-4)

testing this idea

Haslam et al (1996) replicate the original study except:

method:

• participants were told a difference between the group (e.g., A → left-handed vs B → right handed) before the information about behaviour from Hamilton and Gifford’s research

hypothesis:

• no illusory correlation because there is no need to differentiate the groups- to motivation to differentiate

result:

• no illusory correlation

recap of debate and controversy

• lack of external validity (does not explain real life specific stereotypes)

• mere exposure (zajonc) (more A= greater familiarity = positive evaluation)

  • does not explain findings from study 2

• random information loss (Fiedler)- skewed distribution and statistical infrequency would disadvantage small groups)

• Smith- focus on absolute number (more A= more positive evaluation)

• McGarthy SCT- motivated to find the differentiated meaning- try yo distinguish between both groups

  • haslam replicates and tells participants difference between the groups= no illusory correlation as not trying to find a difference

Impact- follow-up research

White Americans overestimate the arrest rate of African Americans (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996)

explained by:

• African Americans= minority group

• Arrest rate= rare/distinct

to do with illusory correlation, not prejudice

what else has it had a large impact on

most widely cited account of stereotype formation

• explains social phenomenon in simple terms and social context is unnecessary

• robust: meta-analysis Mullen & Johnson (1990) shows the effect is robust

Murphy et al (2011)- knowing about illusory correlations can decrease them!!

finally random point

start of cognitive revolution in social psychology

• key example of the social-cognitive approach to the study of social phenomena

• big impact on how people try to ‘fix’ stereotypes