3.1.3 Stereotypes

↳

Key Definitions

Illusory correlation: a cognitive mechanism that leads a person to perceive a relationship between two events when in reality they are not related

Self-fulfilling prophecy: a change in an individual’s behavior as a result of others’ expectations about this individual

Stereotype: a preconceived notion about a group of people; are cognitive (beliefs), unlike prejudice (attitudes) and discrimination (behavior), stereotypes are intended to make generalizations about entire groups

Stereotype threat: the anticipation of a situation that can potentially confirm a negative stereotype about one’s group

Essential Understanding

  • Stereotypes are Biased

    → sometimes the sources of stereotypes are the actually existing differences between groups

    ↳ in these cases stereotypes are no different from other schemas that we develop about objects and situations

→Sometimes simplified to the point where they ignore certain details, but otherwise there’s no reason to suspect that they represent reality inaccurately

↳ however, other stereotypes may actually provide a biased or distorted representation of reality, suggesting the existence of group differences when there are none

↳ it’s this second type of stereotype that has been the focus of psychological research

  • Formation of Stereotypes

    → several theories have been proposed for the formation of the second type of stereotypes

    → the most prominent are:

    ↳ Illusory correlation: can be seen in Hamilton and Gifford (1976)

    ↳ Social categorization: (also links to social identity theory) can be seen Johnson, Schaller, and Mullen (2000)

→Illusory correlation: occurs during encoding of serially presented stimuli

↳ can explain formation of negative stereotypes about minority groups

↳ however, it only occurs in memory-based judgments and only when enough attentional resources are available (Hilton, Hippel 1996)

→Social categorization: enhances the formation of illusory correlations

  • Effects of Stereotypes on Behavior

    → Stereotypes have a range of effects on behavior

    ↳ People who hold a stereotyped group (self-fulfilling prophecy) (can be seen in Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)

    ↳ Members of the stereotyped group itself may inadvertently reinforce the stereotype by changing their behavior (stereotype threat) (can be seen in Steele and Aronson (1995))

    Formation of Stereotypes

→the following ideas are often used to explain the origin of stereotypes: illusory correlation and social categorization

  • Illusory correlation: a cognitive mechanism that leads a person to perceive a relationship between two events when in reality are not related

    ↳this type of cognitive bias that takes place when two statistically infrequent events co-occur

    →frequency of the co-occurrence is overestimated

    ↳ it so happens that encountering a person from a minority group is statistically less frequent just as negative behaviors (like crime) are also statistically less frequent than acceptable behaviors

    → so when the two events (belonging to a minority group and negative behavior) co-occur, the frequency of this co-occurrence is exaggerated, which gives a negative stereotype about the minority group

    ↳ can be seen in Hamilton and Gifford (1976)

  • Social categorization: has been shown to interact with illusory correlation in formation of stereotypes

    ↳ can be seen in Johnson, Schaller, and Mullen (2000)

    Research on Illusory Correlation

  • Hamilton and Gifford (1976)→ Illusory Correlation

↳key: illusory correlation occurs during the encoding of serially presented stimuli

Aim: investigate illusory correlations based on the co-occurrence of infrequent events

Participants: 104 undergraduates

Procedure:

→ Participants read a series of sentences describing desirable and undesirable behaviors performed by members of groups A and B

↳ Groups were abstract because researchers didn’t want any previously existing associations or stereotypes to interfere with the task

→The table below summarizes the 29 sentences given to participants

Group A

Group B

Total

Desirable behaviors

18

9

27

Undesirable behaviors

8

4

12

Total

26

13

39

↳ Based on this information, the following is clear:

↳ Group B was the minority (sentences featuring members of this group were half as likely)

↳ Undesirable behaviors in the sentences, just as in real life, were less frequent

↳ Ratio of desirable to undesirable behaviors in group A and B was exactly the same (18/8=9/4), so there was no real correlation between behaviors and group membership

→ Participants read these statements one by one, for example:

“Bruce, a member of Group A, did volunteer work for a church (desirable behavior)”

→ After reading all these sentences, participants were asked to estimate how many members of each group performed desirable and undesirable behaviors

Results:

→ Participants overestimated the frequency with which members of the minority group performed negative behaviors

Conclusion:

→ there was a perceived association (correlation) between undesirable behavior and group membership

→ researchers argued that the illusory correlation was caused by event distinctiveness: encountering a member of the minority group is a distinct event, and so is encountering an instance of undesirable behavior

↳co-occurrence of two distinct events, according to Hamilton and Gifford, is overestimated

Limitations of Illusory Correlation

→ effects of illusory correlation were found in many research studies with a variety of samples and experimental situations

↳ however, limitations of these effects have been discovered as well:

→ Illusory correlation effects disappear when judgments about groups are made simultaneously with the presentation of stimulus material

↳it’s only when subjects retrieve information about groups from their memory that the effect occurs

↳ so, illusory correlation as a mechanism of stereotype formation is limited to situations where people evaluate groups in a memory-based fashion

→Illusory correlation formation is also inhibited when there are excessive demands on one’s attention

Ex: illusory correlation effects disappeared in studies where there was increased cognitive load on the participants (Hilton, Hippel 1996)

Research of Social Categorization in the Formation of Stereotypes

  • Johnson, Schaller, and Mullen (2000)→ Social Categorization in the Formation of Stereotypes

↳key: social categorization enhances the formation of illusory correlation

Procedure:

↳ similar to the one used in Hamilton and Gifford’s study (1976) and was combined with a social categorization manipulation

→ Participants either knew nothing about their group membership or learned that they were a member of one of the groups

→ Those assigned to one of the groups learned about their group membership either before or after the stimulus presentation (sentences with desirable or undesirable behavior)

Results:

→ Social categorization into the minority group before stimulus presentation eliminated the illusory correlation

→ Social categorization into the minority group after stimulus presentation had no effect on the formation of stereotype

→ Social categorization into the majority group (either before or after stimulus presentation) had little effect on illusory correlations

Effects of Stereotypes on Behavior

→ There is a range of stereotypes on behavior

↳Firstly, people who hold a stereotype may influence the behavior of the stereotyped group

Ex: the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy in the study of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)

↳Secondly, members of the stereotyped group itself may inadvertently reinforce the stereotype by changing their behavior as a result of increased anxiety or apprehension

Ex: can be shown in research of stereotype threat in Steele and Aronson (1995)

Researches

  • Steele and Aronson (1995)→ Stereotype Threat

↳key: define stereotype threat as “being at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group”

↳ it triggers an individual to unintentionally show behavior that supports the existing stereotype

Aim: investigate test performance as a function of stereotype threat in white and black participants

Participants: 114 male and female, black and white Stanford undergraduates

Method and Procedure:

→ Black and white college students were given a 30 minute verbal test that was difficult enough for most participants to find it challenging

→ In the experimental (stereotype-threat group) condition, participants were told that the test diagnosed intellectual ability

→ In the control group, participants were told that the purpose of the research had nothing to do with intellectual ability; it was only to “better understand the psychological factors involved in solving verbal problems”

↳assumption was that linking the test to ability would activate the existing racial stereotypes, so black participants faced the threat of fulfilling the stereotype

Results:

↳ white participants performed equally in the diagnostic and the non-diagnostic condition

↳ black participants performed as well as white participants in the non-diagnostic condition, but performed worse in the diagnostic condition

Conclusion:

→ Linking the test to diagnosing ability depresses the performance of black students through stereotype threat

↳ when the test is presented as less reflective of ability, black participants’ performance improves and matches that of white participants

↳ Researchers suggest that this may be explained by increased apprehension of black students over possibly conforming to the negative group stereotype

↳ faced with this possibility, they become anxious, affecting their test performance

  • Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)→ Self-fulfilling prophecy

↳key: people who hold a stereotype may influence the behavior of the stereotyped group

Aim: investigate whether students of whom greater intellectual growth is expected will actually show greater intellectual growth in a period of one year or less

Participants: 320 students from the same public school; grades 1 to 6 (255 in control group, 65 in the experimental group)

Procedure:

→ teachers in the school were told that certain students were expected to be “growth spurters” based on their IQ test

↳ in reality, this test was fictional and the students that were “spurters'“ were just chosen at random

Results:

↳ in the year of the experiment, control-group students gained an average of 8.4 IQ points; experimental-group students gained an average of 12.2 IQ points

↳ this expectancy advantage was most obvious in young students

Ex: in grade 1, the average gain was 12 IQ points vs. 27.4 IQ points in the control and experimental groups respectively

→ Advantage of favorable expectations was more visible in reasoning IQ as compared to verbal IQ

Conclusion:

→ Changes in teacher’s expectations produce changes in students’ achievement

↳ Stereotypes about others may affect their behavior through the process of self-fulfilling prophecy