Krueger-2008-Attribu
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations http://gpi.sagepub.com Attribution and Categorization Effects in the Representation of Gender Stereotypes Joachim I. Krueger, Julie H. Hall, Paola Villano and Meredith C. Jones Group Processes Intergroup Relations 2008; 11; 401 DOI: 10.1177/1368430208092542 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/3/401 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Group Processes & Intergroup Relations can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/3/401 Downloaded from http://gpi.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2010 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2008 Vol 11(3) 401–414 Attribution and Categorization Effects in the Representation of Gender Stereotypes Joachim I. Krueger Brown University Julie H. Hall University at Buffalo Paola Villano Università di Bologna Meredith C. Jones University of Denver Social stereotypes involve judgments of how typical certain personality traits are of a group. According to the attribution hypothesis, judgments of trait typicality depend on the perceived prevalence of the trait in the target group. According to the categorization hypothesis, such judgments depend on the degree to which a trait is thought to be more or less prevalent in the target group than in a relevant comparison group. A study conducted with women and men as target groups showed that the attribution hypothesis fi t the data best when typicality ratings were made in an absolute format. When, however, typicality ratings were made in a comparative format (how typical is the trait of women as compared with men?), both hypotheses received support. Analytical derivation, supported by empirical evidence, showed an inverse relationship between the size of perceived group differences and their weight given in stereotyping. Implications for stereotype measurement and the rationality of social perception are discussed. keywords accentuation, bias, gender stereotypes, rational Human judgment, be it psychophysical or social, from the same domain, and the ability to occurs in absolute and comparative modes. In make comparative judgments requires some the absolute mode, a judge directly assesses the properties of an object and maps them on an existing scale. In the comparative mode, a judge Author’s note evaluates a target object in relation to another Address correspondence to Joachim I. object, which provides a standard for com- Krueger, Department of Psychology, parison. Neither one of these modes is entirely Brown University, Box 1853, 89 pure. The ability to make absolute judgments Waterman St., Providence, RI 02912, USA requires past experience with other objects [email: [email protected]] Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) Downloaded from http://gpi.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY11:3; 401–414; on January DOI: 12, 2010 10.1177/1368430208092542 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(3) sense of how each object—the target and the categorization view, suggesting that any ‘stereo- referent—is alike. type is noteworthy only inasmuch as it implies The dialectic between absolute and compar- that members of the stereotyped group differ ative modes of judgment pervades many areas signifi cantly from ordinary people’ (p. 297). With of social perception, including the study of regard to gender, Chiu and colleagues suggest social stereotypes. Social stereotypes are often that ‘knowledge about gender differences [is] assessed by having people rate how typical organized into a network in a person’s long- or characteristic various traits are of a target term memory’ (Chiu, Hong, Lam, Fu, Tong, & group. By one account, people only care about Lee, 1998, p. 82). the prevalence of a trait in the group. The more The coexistence of divergent defi nitions and prevalent it is, the more typical it must be. measurement approaches presents a challenge: This hypothesis assumes a simple associative how should a suitable defi nition be chosen mechanism linking typicality judgments to among the available alternatives, and does it prevalence estimates. We refer to this idea as really matter? One option is to ask which defi n- the attribution hypothesis. By another account, ition is most consistent with the way people people also care about prevalence of a trait in form judgments about social groups. Another a comparison group. The larger—and the more option is to ask how empirical judgments map positive—the difference in trait prevalence onto the underlying processes that give rise to is, the more typical the trait must be. This these judgments. The appeal of the attribution hypothesis assumes a more complex psycho- hypothesis is its simplicity. This hypothesis logical mechanism. Two prevalence estimates assumes that people only need to learn and must be generated and compared before trait remember frequency information (Hasher & typicality can be judged. We refer to this account Zacks, 1984) and to transform this information as the categorization hypothesis. into probabilistic prevalence estimates (Estes, Both hypotheses have a long history. Zawadski 1976). These tasks require little attention and (1948) and Allport (1954) recognized their can yield high levels of accuracy (Anderson & theoretical appeal, but did not express a pre- Schooler, 1991), and this may explain why ference. Empirical work initially favored the stereotypes are easily activated (Lambert, Payne, associationism embodied by the attribution Jacoby, Shaffer, Chasteen, & Khan, 2003). In hypothesis (e.g., Brigham, 1971; Mann, 1967), contrast, the categorization hypothesis requires but later emphasized the idea that stereotypes the learning of probability differentials or the involve perceptual differentiations between covariation between categories and features groups (e.g., Ford & Stangor, 1992; Judd & (Lewicki, Hill, & Czyzewska, 1992). This type Park, 1993; Martell & DeSmet, 2001; McCauley of learning can also occur, but it is more easily & Stitt, 1978). The way stereotypes were meas- disrupted (Stamos-Rossnagel, 2001). ured yielded corresponding defi nitions of what Competitive hypothesis tests are complicated stereotypes were. Both types of defi nition can by the fact that the predictions are the same be found in the literature. Refl ecting the at- much of the time. Consider the perception tribution point of view, Hilton and von Hippel that 60% and 40% of people in groups A and B (1996) defi ne stereotypes as ‘beliefs about the respectively possess a certain trait. Both hypoth- characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of eses predict that the trait will be seen as typical members of certain groups’ (p. 240). Applying of group A and atypical of group B. Across this perspective to gender stereotypes, Eagly, traits, it can be expected that typicality ratings Mladinic, and Otto (1991) suggest that ‘the are correlated with both the simple prevalence percentage of people in each group (e.g., estimates for the target group (e.g., A) and with women) who have each characteristic (e.g., who the differences between the two prevalence are “warm”) [captures the] association between estimates (e.g., A-B). the group and each characteristic’ (p. 208). Tests of the attribution and the categorization Conversely, Kunda and Thagard (1996) take the hypotheses require assessments of their unique 402 Downloaded from http://gpi.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on January 12, 2010 Krueger et al. attribution and categorization effects effects. The unique attribution effect is given by (Eiser, 1996; Krueger, 1992; Krueger & Clement, the correlation between typicality ratings and 1994; Rothbart, Davis-Stitt, & Hill, 1997). Dif- prevalence estimates for the target group that ferences between categories are exaggerated control for the differences in the prevalence when a salient categorical (i.e., social grouping) estimates for the two groups. The unique cat- variable is correlated with the continuous (i.e., egorization effect is given by the correlation psycho-behavioral) variable being judged (Tajfel, between typicality ratings and the differences 1969; Wyer, Sadler, & Judd, 2002). between the two sets of prevalence estimates If people perceived no gender differences at that control for the prevalence estimates for the all, the categorization hypothesis would have to target group. In a study of national stereotypes, be false. If, however, people do perceive group American and Italian participants made pre- differences, they have an opportunity to base valence estimates and typicality ratings for their judgments of trait typicality on these dif- Americans, Italians, English, and Germans. Each ferences. By extension, one might conclude that of the four stereotypes was characterized by a the larger these perceived differences are, the strong unique attribution effect, whereas the more strongly they are associated with judgments unique categorization effects were negligible of trait typicality. The meta-contrast principle (Krueger, 1996). The superior fi t of the attribu- of self-categorization theory suggests as much tion hypothesis was replicated in a study of (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). In contrast, gender stereotypes using American and Italian the earlier study on national stereotypes yielded