Two Key Studies of Stereotypes : Hamilton & Gifford (1976) & Spencer et al. (1999) (SL IB Psychology)

Aim: To investigate illusory correlation based on group size as a key factor in the formation of stereotypes

Participants: 40 undergraduate students from a university in New York state, USA (20 males; 20 females)

Procedure:

• The participants were presented with two hypothetical groups i.e. these were not real groups consisting of real people with given characteristics
• The participants were told that Group A consisted of 26 members and that Group B consisted of 13 members
• The participants then read a series of statements which each described a particular behaviour performed by either a member of A or B e.g. John, a member of A, visited a friend in hospital
• The behaviours described in the statements were classified as either desirable or undesirable
• Both A and B were assigned more positive than negative behaviours at a ratio of 9:4 (positive to negative) and two thirds of the statements overall were attributed to members of A
• Thus, members of A were presented as performing more behaviours overall than B and positive behaviours were more frequent from both groups than negative behaviours

The participants were then asked to provide ratings for the following measures: 

1. Given a list of 20 attributes, assign each to either group A or B
2. Given a particular example of a behaviour, say whether this behaviour was performed by a member of A or B
3. Estimate how many negative behaviours can be attributed to either A or B

Results: The mean scores showed that participants attributed more desirable social behaviours (6.7) to members of Group A than to members of Group B (6.0); undesirable social behaviours were attributed more to Group B (5.6) than to Group A (4.4).

Conclusion: The results suggest that illusory correlation may be based on group size: the smaller group, B, appears more distinctive than the larger group A so that any undesirable behaviours are linked more often to the minority group, B, than to the majority group A. This has implications in terms of how minority groups are viewed by society.

Evaluation of Hamilton & Gifford (1976)

Strengths

• The study generated quantitative data, which is easy to compare and analyse, making the results reliable
• The findings could be used to inform awareness-raising as a means to reduce prejudice and increase tolerance of minority groups

Weaknesses

• The procedure does not fully reflect how people respond in real-life situations where they are exposed to minority groups which reduces ecological validity
• The small sample size reduces the statistical power of the data which means that the results lack robustness

Key terms:

• Illusory correlation
• Minority
• Majority

Aim: To investigate the idea that stereotype threat will impair Maths performance in women.

Participants:

• 56 undergraduate students from the University of Michigan (28 female; 28 male)
• All the participants were required to have completed at least one semester of calculus (a very difficult, challenging form of Maths) and to have received a grade of ‘‘B’’ or better
• They also were required to have scored above the 85th percentile in Maths for their year group (i.e. they were all of equal ability in Maths)

Procedure: Participants were tested in male and female groups of three to six. They were told, ‘‘We are developing some new tests that we are evaluating across a large group of University of Michigan students. Today you will be taking a math test.’’

There were 2 conditions of the Independent Variable:

1. In the relevance condition participants were told that the test had shown gender differences in the past—this was done deliberately to trigger stereotype threat in the female participants as Maths is thought to be something that women underperform in compared to men
2. In the irrelevance condition (no stereotype threat triggered), participants were told that the test had never shown gender differences in the past

Results:

• In the first condition (relevance i.e. sensitive to gender differences), women significantly underperformed in relation to equally qualified men
• In the irrelevance condition (i.e. no mention of gender differences affecting performance) the performance in the Maths test was about equal

Conclusion: These findings provide strong evidence that women’s underperformance on the Maths test results from stereotype threat, rather than from sex-linked ability differences that are detectable only on advanced mathematical material. In other words, women are just as good at Maths as men – but only when a supposed stereotype is not presented to them i.e. when a stereotype is not triggered

Evaluation of Spencer et al. (1999)

Strengths

• Using participants who were matched in terms of their Maths ability helps to eliminate individual differences between genders and thus increases the validity of the findings
• The female participants in the relevance condition were not specifically told that women tended to under-perform in the test, only that gender differences had been been found in the past which further increases the study’s validity 

Weaknesses

• Performance on the Maths test could have been due to the participants succumbing to demand characteristics e.g. by trying too hard, not hard enough, feeling nervous so the results may not be due to stereotype threat alone
• The results of the study could be used maliciously by those who wish to further promote stereotypes e.g. politically-motivated or sexist individuals/institutions who could point to the study’s findings and claim that they ‘prove’ that women are not as able as men academically

Key terms:

• Stereotype threat
• Relevance
• Irrelevance