Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments

Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation.

“…Explanations that focus on a single dimension of evaluation cannot explain how the two groups would each be associated with a different attribute. For example, the original distinctiveness-based account (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976) posits only that Group B will be seen as possessing the rare attribute more so than Group A. It cannot explain why Group A would be seen to possess the common trait to a greater extent than Group B. Obversely, Rothbart's (1981) account proposes only that Group A will be seen as possessing the common trait to a greater extent than Group B but not that Group B will possess the rare trait to a greater extent than Group A.…”

“…Thus, the effects are reversed when the majority of the behaviors are negative rather than positive. In this case, Group B is perceived to be more positive than Group A (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976). tive versus negative behaviors for Group A (18 Ϫ 8 ϭ 10) than for Group B (9 Ϫ 4 ϭ 5) constitutes a real group difference-that Group A is objectively more favorable than Group B. They further suggested that participants are motivated to differentiate the two groups and therefore seek to amplify this real group difference via category accentuation processes, such as biased perceptions of group behaviors (e.g., Berndsen, Van der Pligt, Spears, & McGarty, 1996) and other confirmatory hypothesis-testing strategies (e.g., Berndsen, McGarty, Van der Pligt, & Spears, 2001).…”

“…As just described, in the standard illusory correlation experiment, the common and rare group attributes are positive and negative evaluative descriptors. For example, in the original demonstration (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976), the majority group (Group A) consisted of 18 positive and 8 negative members, whereas the minority group (Group B) consisted of 9 positive and 4 negative members. In our modified version of this design, the common and rare attributes were independent trait dimensions.…”

“…Because past accounts have been designed only to explain differentiation of the minority and majority groups along a single dimension, they have trouble explaining the results of Experiments 2, 3, and 5. For example, accounts designed to explain only why the rare descriptor is associated with the minority group (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976) or why the common descriptor is associated with the majority group (Rothbart, 1981) cannot explain the presence of both effects within a single design. Likewise, accounts that focus on the different numbers of frequent and infrequent descriptors within each group also have a difficult time explaining the results from Experiments 2, 3, and 5 (e.g., Fiedler, 1991;McGarty & De la Haye, 1997;Smith, 1991).…”

Sowing the seeds of stereotypes: Spontaneous inferences about groups.

“…Research using both the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, 1970;Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) and the illusory correlation paradigm (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976) demonstrated differentiation between groups for which there was no informational basis. Participants in those studies were given information about groups that they used to make group judgments.…”