Chapter 9: Prejudice: Disliking Others (2947.0K) - Bad Request

338 Part Three Social Relations
Such generalizing from a single case can cause problems. Vivid instances, though
more available in memory, seldom represent the larger group. Exceptional athletes,
though distinctive and memorable, are not the best basis for judging the distribution
of athletic talent among an entire group.
Those in a numerical minority, being more distinctive, also may be numerically
overestimated by the majority. What proportion of your country’s population
would you say is Muslim? People in non-Muslim countries often overestimate this
proportion. (In the United States, a Pew Research Center [2011] study reported that
0.8 percent of the population were Muslim.)
Consider a 2011 Gallup survey, in which the average American guessed that
25 percent of people are exclusively homosexual (Morales, 2011). The best evidence
suggests that about 3 percent of men and 1 or 2 percent of women have a same-sex
orientation (Chandra & others, 2011; Herbenick & others, 2010).
Myron Rothbart and his colleagues (1978) showed how distinctive cases also fuel
stereotypes. They had University of Oregon students view 50 slides, each of which
stated a man’s height. For one group of students, 10 of the men were slightly over
6 feet (up to 6 feet, 4 inches). For other students, these 10 men were well over 6 feet
(up to 6 feet, 11 inches). When asked later how many of the men were over 6 feet,
those given the moderately tall examples recalled 5 percent too many. Those given
the extremely tall examples recalled 50 percent too many. In a follow-up experiment,
students read descriptions of the actions of 50 men, 10 of whom had committed
either nonviolent crimes, such as forgery, or violent crimes, such as rape.
Of those shown the list with the violent crimes, most overestimated the number of
criminal acts.
DISTINCTIVE EVENTS FOSTER ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS
Stereotypes assume a correlation between group membership and individuals’ presumed
characteristics (“Italians are emotional,” “Jews are shrewd,” “Accountants
are perfectionists”). Often, people’s stereotypes are accurate (Jussim, 2012). But
sometimes our attentiveness to unusual occurrences creates illusory correlations.
Because we are sensitive to distinctive events, the co-occurrence of two such events
is especially noticeable—more noticeable than each of the times the unusual events
do not occur together.
David Hamilton and Robert Gifford (1976) demonstrated illusory correlation in
a classic experiment. They showed students slides in which various people, members
of “Group A” or “Group B,” were said to have done something desirable or
undesirable. For example, “John, a member of Group A, visited a sick friend in the
hospital.” Twice as many statements described members of Group A as Group B.
But both groups did nine desirable acts for every four undesirable behaviors. Since
both Group B and the undesirable acts were less frequent, their co-occurrence—
for example, “Allen, a member of Group B, dented the fender of a parked car and
didn’t leave his name”—was an unusual combination that caught people’s attention.
The students therefore overestimated the frequency with which the “minority”
group (B) acted undesirably, and they judged Group B more harshly.
Remember, Group A members outnumbered Group B members two to one, and
Group B members committed undesirable acts in the same proportion as Group A
members (thus, they committed only half as many). Moreover, the students had
no preexisting biases for or against Group B, and they received the information
more systematically than daily experience ever offers it. Although researchers
debate why it happens, they agree that illusory correlation occurs and provides yet
another source for the formation of racial stereotypes (Berndsen & others, 2002).
Thus, the features that most distinguish a minority from a majority are those that
become associated with it (Sherman & others, 2009). Your ethnic or social group
may be like other groups in most ways, but people will notice how it differs.
In experiments, even single co-occurrences of an unusual act by someone in an
atypical group—“Ben, a Jehovah’s Witness, owns a pet sloth”—can embed illusory