STEREOTYPES
In this lesson, we will focus on two aspects of stereotypes.


Formation of stereotypes
Effects of stereotyping
What are stereotypes?
For example, women are talented speakers or women are bad drivers. Stereotyping is a form of social categorization that affects the behavior of
those who hold the stereotype, and those who are labeled by a stereotype. Researchers explain stereotyping as a result of schema processing.
Activity 1
Padlet
https://padlet.com/saadiarizz/93a6nswkemroe8l5
You have 3 minutes
Define stereotypes
 Preconceived notions about a group of
people
 Cognitive (beliefs) – they are
schemas/mental shortcuts.
 Often acquired indirectly from other people
and social norms and not from personal
experience.
 They are schemas that help us understand
the world around us.
 Stereotypes can be either positive or
negative.
 Tend to be very general in nature and
individuals acknowledge that they cannot
be applied to all members of the group.
The stereotype serves as a heuristic - the
person is like this until proven otherwise.
 Prone to confirmation bias - that is, we
tend to see examples - whether on the
street, in print or on television - that
confirm our stereotypes and we tend to
ignore evidence that contradicts them.
Define prejudice
Define discrimination
 When we make a judgment about
 Discrimination is a behavior - based on
individuals with very little information about
stereotyping and prejudice.
them except for their group membership.
 Prejudice is an attitude - which means that
cognition (schema) is combined with
emotion - in this case, often liking or
disliking the individual.
 Prejudice is usually negative.
Watch this video about orientalism and stereotyping.
Orientalism means depiction of the Eastern world in arts, literature, movie, etc.
1
Apply your knowledge
Find two examples of stereotypes in the media—newspapers, magazines, books, packaging, products, posters, or films. Bring the image to
class, and explain why the image represents a stereotype and why you think this image persists.
THE FORMATION OF STEREOTYPES
How is it that stereotypes develop? Although Tajfel argues that this is a natural cognitive process of social categorization, this does not explain
how the stereotype is actually formed. Schneider (2004) argues that there are two ways that stereotypes develop: indirectly, as a product of our
culture or society or directly, as a result of our own experience with other people. Campbell (1967) maintains that there are two key sources of
stereotypes: personal experience with individuals and groups, and gatekeepers - the media, parents, and other members of our culture. He goes
on to argue that stereotypes thus have a basis in some reality. His grain of truth hypothesis argues that an experience with an individual from a
group will then be generalized to the group.
Hamilton and Gifford (1976) argue, instead, that stereotypes are the result of an illusory correlation - that is, people see a relationship between
two variables even when there is none. An example of this is when people form false associations between membership of a social group and
specific behaviors such as women’s inferior ability in mathematics. The illusory correlation phenomenon causes people to overestimate a link
between the two variables, here “women” and “ability in mathematics”. Illusory correlations can come in many forms and culturally-based
prejudice about social groups can to some extent be classified as illusory correlations. Illusory correlation is an example of what researchers call
“cognitive bias”, that is, a person’s tendency to make errors in judgment based on cognitive factors. Attribution errors are also examples of
cognitive bias.
Once illusory correlations are made, people tend to seek out or remember information that supports this relationship. This is an example
of confirmation bias. Generally, this means that people tend to overlook information that contradicts what they already believe. In a social
context, they pay attention to behaviors that confirm what they believe about a group and ignore those behaviors contrary to their beliefs.
Confirmation bias makes stereotypical thinking resistant to change. Snyder and Swann (1978) conducted a study in which they told female
college students that they would meet a person who was either introverted (reserved, cool) or extroverted (outgoing, warm). The participants
were then asked to prepare a set of questions for the person they were going to meet. In general, participants came up with questions that
confirmed their perceptions of introverts and extroverts. Those who thought they were going to meet an introvert asked, “What do you dislike
about parties?” or “Are there times you wish you could be more outgoing?” and extroverts were asked, “What do you do to liven up a party?” The
researchers concluded that the questions asked confirmed participants’ stereotypes of each personality type so that it became a self-fulfilling
prophecy - for example, because they believed he was an introvert they asked him questions that made him appear to be one.
Stereotypes can also be formed as a means of taking on the in-group’s social representation of the out-group. In other words, individuals may
conform to the group norms with regard to the “other”. Rogers and Frantz (1962) found that white immigrants to Rhodesia (today’s Zimbabwe)
developed more stereotypes and prejudice against the local people the longer they stayed there. They argue that this is because they adopted
the social norms that were dominant in the group they were joining in order to fit in. The study, however, was cross-sectional. In other words,
the behavior of the participants was not measured over time, but instead a "snapshot in time" was taken and the data were compared. We
cannot know if there was a significant change in the stereotyping and prejudice of the participants over time as their original attitudes toward the
local people were never measured.
2
USING THEORIES TO EXPLAIN FORMATION OF STEREOTYPES
1. How can you explain SIT to explain the formation of stereotypes? (use the various concepts of SIT like social categorization, etc.)
Review your notes about SIT. You have 10 minutes to complete this task.
Post your answers on padlet.
https://padlet.com/saadiarizz/93a6nswkemroe8l5
Supporting evidence
3
2. Illusory correlation theory
Sometimes a perception can be formed that there is a relationship between events, actions and behaviors when, in fact, no relationship exists.
For example, a woman lives next to university students who are loud and disrespectful. When she chooses a new home, she refuses to live near
college students, generalizing that the behavior of her previous neighbors is indicative of all university students.
It is a type of cognitive bias which happens when two frequently unrelated events happen at the same time. We overestimate the happening at
the same time and form stereotypes in our mind.
Supporting evidence.
Hamilton and Giffard (1976)
Illusory correlation is defined as people's tendencies to overestimate relationships between two groups when distinctive and unusual information
is presented. Illusory correlation is based on System 1 thinking - specifically, the availability heuristic - that is, decisions are made based on what
first comes to mind.
The study by Hamilton and Gifford (1976) may be used to answer a question on the formation of stereotypes or on cognitive biases.
Background information
As human beings, we are rather obsessed with a very simple question: why? We infer causality based on very limited evidence. For example,
John goes against his better judgment and watches Netflix until 1:00 am. He then gets in an argument with his boss that day at work. He
assumes that it is because he watched Netflix until 1:00 am that he had the argument with this boss.
We often make decisions based on a limited amount of information. We often rely on System 1 thinking, making decisions based on heuristics that is, cognitive short-cuts. In this case, we use the availability heuristic, using easily recalled pairings of people and behaviors to make a
judgment. For example, people tend to think that a change in weather leads to arthritis pain. They can easily recall when the weather changed
and this happened, but in a study by Redelmeier and Tversky (1996), they found no such correlation. However, they did find a high belief in
this correlation.
There are two types of illusory correlations: expectancy-based and distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Expectancy-based illusory
correlation occurs when we mistakenly see relationships due to our pre-existing expectations surrounding them. In other words, I notice that a
librarian is quiet and I assume that is because librarians are quiet people or introverts. This is a form of confirmation bias - I see what I expect
to see and this strengthens my belief. If I see something that doesn't match that expectation, I either forget about it or I rationalize that is an
exception to the rule - something known as the discounting principle.
Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations happen when a relationship is believed to exist between two variables due to focusing too much on
information that stands out. It is this type of correlation that Hamilton and Gifford investigated in their classic study.
Procedure and results
Hamilton & Gifford (1976) carried out an experiment with 70 American undergraduates (35 males; 35 females). Participants were shown a
series of slides, each with a statement about a member of one of two groups - simply called group A and B. There were twice as many people in
group A (26) as group B (13), so group B was the minority group. The participants were told that group B was smaller than group A before
starting the experiment. Each statement was about one individual in one of the two groups; the statement was either positive or negative. Each
group had the same proportion of positive and negative comments.
Participants were then asked to rank members of each group on a series of 20 traits - for example, popular, social, intelligent. After completing
this task, they were given a booklet in which they were given a statement and then asked whether the person who did this was from Group A or
Group B. Finally, they were asked how many of the statements for each group had been "undesirable."
Half of the group changed the order of measuring the dependent variables in order to avoid interference effects. So, the booklet was completed
before the trait rankings.
The results are as follows:
•
On the trait ratings, group A was ranked higher than group B for positive traits and lower for negative traits.
•
In the booklet, participants correctly recalled more positive traits for group A (74%) than for group B (54%) and more negative traits for
group B (65%) than for group A (55%)
•
Participants overestimated the number of negative traits in the minority group, but this finding was not significantly significant.
Hamilton & Gifford argued that this was because the minority group was by nature smaller in number, their negative behaviors appeared more
distinct and appear to be representative of the group. So, one minority male is caught stealing and it appears to be related to the fact that he is a
minority. This demonstrates why negative stereotypes may be more common for minority groups than for the majority. Such research has led
to the modern practice in many countries not to report the race or ethnicity of people who have been charged with a crime
4
Follow-up research
In the same report (Hamilton and Gifford, 1976), the researchers discuss a variation of their original experiment.
This study was carried out with 70 American female undergraduates. The procedure was the same as the study above - but this time, the
participants were not told that there were fewer people in group B before starting the experiment. Each statement was about one individual in
one of the two groups; the statement was either positive or negative. Each group had the same proportion of positive and negative comments.
The results of the study showed that there was an illusory correlation - but this time, group B was seen as having more positive traits than group
A! The researchers concluded that it was by informing the participants in experiment 1 in advance that group B was the smaller group (and thus
a "minority group"), they may have been primed for seeing this group in a more negative light. However, in the second experiment, when this
label was not put on group B, the more positive traits stood out.
Evaluation
The researchers created two groups, A and B, for which there would be no pre-existing stereotypes. This increased the level of internal
validity.
It was, however, highly artificial - meaning that ecological validity was low. We cannot know to what extent this predicts the development of
stereotypes under natural conditions. In real life, there is much more context to making stereotypes - this could include economic competition,
legitimate or unwarranted fear of others, institutionalized racism or prejudice and/or actual experiences with members of the other group.
The study was a repeated measure design. The IVs were the positive or negative statements - and the size of each group. The conditions
were concurrent. This means that there were not two distinct conditions run separately. This eliminates the variable of participant variability - all
participants took part in all aspects of the study.
Although the findings do show a difference between the positive and negative traits attributed to each group, the findings were not all significant.
There have been practical applications of this study. For example, it has been found that doctors tend to "over-remember" poor health practices
in obese patients compared to other patients (Madey and Ondrus, 1999). It suggests that stigmatized patients suffer more from an illusory
correlation bias than do non-stigmatized patients.
5
3. By correspondence bias
Stereotypes may be formed by correspondence bias as well. It is also called fundamental attribution error or over-attribution effect. It is the
tendency of people to over-emphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations of behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing
situational factors. It means that we judge people someone’s personality based on their behavior (dispositional factors), even when these factors
can be completely explained by the situation (situational factors).
For example, you see someone doing something that annoys you and you think that that person is annoying. Rarely, you take a moment to think
that the external circumstances might have lead them to behave in that way. People may make a correspondence bias because of the following
reasons:

They may not know about the situation which caused the person to behave in a particular way.

They may have high expectations of the person in question.

People might have “belief resistance” – even when they know that they are wrong, they may find it hard to correct their first belief.
Nier and Gaertner (2012) found that people who have correspondence bias tend to stereotype high-status people as competent and low-status
people as incompetent. Participants who had a high correspondence bias score tended to stereotype rich people as more competent than poor
people. They also stereotype men as more competent than women.
4. The role of upbringing on stereotyping.
Stereotypes may be formed as a consequence of one’s upbringing. Some stereotypes may develop in early childhood because they are
presented to children by parents, teachers, friends and the media.
Bar-Tal (1996) investigated the role of upbringing in the formation of a stereotype of Arabs in Jewish children in Israel. 214 children (102 boys
and 112 girls, aged 2 -6 years) from two socio-economically different Tel Aviv neighborhoods were individually shown a photograph of an Arab
man wearing the traditional kaffia. Each child was then asked to rate him against four following traits:

Good / bad

Dirty / clean

Handsome / ugly

Weak / strong
The results showed that almost all the children had developed a negative stereotype of Arabs. The study concluded that children acquire or
develop some stereotypes from their environmental experiences, i.e. from parents, media, peers and teachers, as well as direct contact with
outgroup members.
6
EFFECTS OF STEREOTYPING
In the cognitive approach, we learned that schema have an effect on behavior. As stereotyping is a form of schema processing, it should be no
surprise to you that stereotyping can affect behavior. Two ways in which stereotyping may affect behavior are stereotype threat and memory
distortion.
Stereotype threat occurs when one is in a situation where there is a threat of being judged or treated stereotypically or a fear of doing
something that would inadvertently confirm that stereotype. Steele and Aronson (1995) carried out an experiment to see the effect of stereotype
threat on performance. They gave a 30-minute verbal test, made up of very difficult multiple-choice questions. When one group was told it was a
genuine test of their verbal abilities, African American participants scored significantly lower than European American participants. In another
group that was presented with the same test but told that it was not diagnostic of their ability, African American students scored higher than the
first group, and their performance was not significantly different from the European American students. However, it was not possible to argue that
awareness of racial stereotyping was the actual cause of the difference, so they did one more version of the experiment where the participants
had to fill in a personal information questionnaire. Half of the questionnaires asked the participants to identify their race. African Americans who
had to identify their race did poorly; those that did not, did just as well as their European American peers.
Steele & Aronson argue that you don’t need to believe in a stereotype for it to affect your behavior. Stereotype threat turns on spotlight anxiety,
which causes emotional distress and pressure that may undermine performance. Students under the stereotype threat often underperform and
this can naturally limit their educational prospects. Spencer et al (1999) tested the effect of the stereotype threat on intellectual performance. The
researchers gave a difficult mathematics test to students who were strong in mathematics. They predicted that women under the stereotype
threat would under-perform compared to the men taking the test. The stereotype threat that women experience in mathematics-performance
settings originates from a negative stereotype about women’s mathematics ability, which is quite common in society. For women who are good at
mathematics and see mathematics as an important part of their self-definition, such a stereotype threat may result in an interfering pressure in
test situations. Spencer et al. found that this was true: women in the experiment significantly underperformed compared with equally qualified
men on the difficult mathematics tests. However, when the researchers tested literature skills, the two groups performed equally well. This was
because women are not stereotype threatened in this area.
Another effect of stereotyping is memory distortion. In a study carried out by Martin & Halverson (1983), the researchers wanted to see if
gender stereotyping would influence recall in 5 and 6-year-old children. Each child was shown 16 pictures, half of which depicted a child
performing gender-consistent activities (for example, a boy playing with a truck) and half showing children displaying gender-inconsistent
behaviors (for example, a girl chopping wood). One week later, they tested the recall of the children to see how many of the photos that they
could recall accurately.
The results showed that children easily recalled the sex of the actor for scenes in which actors had performed gender-consistent activities. But
when the actor’s behavior was gender inconsistent, the children often distorted the scene by saying that the actor’s sex was consistent with the
activity they recalled - that is, they would remember that it was the boy playing with a truck, when in fact they had been shown a photo of a girl
playing with a truck.
In a classic experiment done in 1947, Allport & Postman wanted to see the effect of stereotyping on recall. To carry out the experiment, the
researchers showed a participant a drawing of a white man holding a razor and threatening a black man on the subway. The participant was then
asked to describe what he had seen to another participant – a process called serial reproduction, one of the same strategies used by Bartlett in
his classic War of the Ghosts study. The process was repeated for up to seven participants. The researchers found that in over half of the
experiments, at some stage the story was retold so that the black man was threatening the white man. It appears that stereotyping had affected
the retelling of the story. The study is very old, so is it still relevant today? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
In a study by Payne (2001), participants were first given a test of racial prejudice to eliminate strong racial prejudice as a confounding
variable. 32 non-black university students were asked to sit at a computer screen. They would be shown a face - either a white or a black face
- followed by an image. They had only a second to choose whether the image was either a tool or a gun. The study showed that priming the
participants with black faces led to more errors in identifying the image as a weapon rather than a tool. Thus, stereotyping affected perception,
which then had implications for memory. Several studies have shown that the race of an alleged criminal influences memory of a weapon. The
effect of stereotypes can be very serious indeed.
Supporting evidence for stereotype threat.
Steele and Aronson (1995)
Steele & Aronson carried out a study to show how stereotype threat may affect an individual's test performance. You can use this study for the
following content in the sociocultural approach:
Research methods used in the sociocultural approach.
Social Identity Theory.
The effect of stereotypes on behavior.
Procedure and results
The aim of the study was to see how stereotype threat affects test performance in African Americans. Steele & Aronson defined stereotype threat
as being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group.
The sample was made up of 76 male and female, black and white undergraduates from Stanford University. There were two independent
variables in the study: the race of the participant and the test descriptions. The participants were given a standardized test of verbal ability similar to the SAT - and were told one of two things: 1. It is a test to diagnose your intellectual ability; 2. it is a test of your problem-solving
7
skills; In the first condition, the focus was on "verbal ability"; on the second two conditions, it was on "problem-solving." Participants were
randomly assigned to one of the conditions; however, they made sure that there were equal numbers of participants in each condition.
The following graph shows the mean test scores under each condition. There was no significant difference between male and female
participants, so gender is not included.
As you can see, African Americans did poorly when they believed that the test was a test of their ability, but did just as well as the white
Americans when they believed that it was a test of their problem-solving skills. In other words, African American participants performed less well
than their white counterparts in the stereotype threat condition, but in the non-threat condition, their performance equaled that of their white
counterparts.
Evaluation
•
•
•
The sample was made up of Stanford University students, so it may not be representative and thus difficult to generalize the findings.
The study made use of an independent samples design. Verbal scores from participants' SATs were collected prior to the study in
order to make sure that they were all within the norm of verbal performance. In this way, participant variability was minimized.
However, a matched-pairs design may have been a better approach.
Although there is a difference between the two average scores, it does not necessarily mean that the participants experienced
stereotype threat. Their salience about their racial identity and their levels of stress during the exam were not measured in this first
variation of the experiment. Later variations of the experiment showed, however, that this was most probably the case.
Activity
Try this Implicit Bias Test online. It is interesting!
Be honest with yourself while taking the test.
Bear in mind that you may not agree with the results!
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
8
Test yourself
1. George sees a Swedish tourist at his local restaurant. He watches as the tourist argues with the waiter about the bill. When the tourist
realizes that the mistake is his, and not the waiter’s, he does not apologize, but storms out of the restaurant. George thinks that all Swedish
tourists are rude. Which theory or concept below explains what just happened?
A. Confirmation bias
B. Informational social influence
C. Grain of truth hypothesis
D. Illusory correlation
Answer: D
Through his personal experience, George has made a link between being Swedish and being rude. However, that link is not really there. If he
were to see another rude Swede in his local restaurant, he may then experience confirmation bias - noting this behavior and reinforcing his belief
that all Swedes are rude. You will be happy to know that Swedes are not rude and the Swede in this story was probably having a bad day. :)
2. In a study of geography skills, John was asked to read an article about how poorly American score on world geography tests compared to
Europeans. He doesn’t believe that the article is true. What can we predict will be the results of his geography test?
A. He will do poorly due to stereotype threat.
B. His anxiety will rise and he will not be able to take the test.
C. He will not do poorly because he doesn't believe in the stereotype.
D. He will do really well in order to prove that the stereotype is incorrect.
Answer: A
Steele and Aronson argue that even when we don't believe in a stereotype, it still affects our performance in a negative manner.
9
Exam practice/sample questions
SAQs [9 marks. Ideally, you must finish one SAQ in 20 minutes and a maximum of 600 words]
1. Explain one theory of the formation of stereotypes with reference to one study.
2. Explain one study of the effects of stereotyping on behavior.
ERQs [22 marks. Ideally, you must be able to write this answer in 50 minutes with a maximum of 900 – 1000 words]
3. Discuss the formation of stereotypes.
Command term “discuss” means that you have to present a range of arguments with supporting evidence.
In this question you will do the following:





Describe/define what is a stereotype.
Explain at least two theories about the formation of stereotypes. (SIT and illusory correlation would do)
Critically evaluate these theories.
Support these theories with at least one research study each.
Critically evaluate each research study and link it with the question.
4. Discuss the effects of stereotyping on behavior.
In this question you will do the following:




Describe/define what is a stereotype.
Explain at least two effects of stereotyping on behavior – stereotype threat and memory distortion
Write supporting evidence.
Critically evaluate each research study and link it with the question.
______________________________________________________________________
10