|Corr I 463
Stereotypes/Social Psychology/Robinson/Sedikides: trait self-reports appear to be more stereotypic than are momentary ratings of the self (Robinson and Clore 2002a)(1). If so, priming stereo-types, such as those related to the idea that women are more emotional than men, should differentially influence trait judgments of the self relative to state judgments of the self. This prediction was systematically confirmed in a study reported by Robinson and Clore (2002b)(2), who primed gender stereotypes prior to asking individuals to rate their emotions both in general and in more momentary terms. (…), there is some experimental evidence for the idea that trait self-reports are more stereotyped than are views of the self over more recent time frames (e.g., the ‘last few days’).
1. Robinson, M. D. and Clore, G. L. 2002a. Belief and feeling: an accessibility model of emotional self-report, Psychological Bulletin 128: 934–60
2. Robinson, M. D. and Clore, G. L. 2002b. Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: evidence for two judgment processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 198–215
Michael D. Robinson and Constantine Sedikides, “Traits and the self: toward an integration”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press
- - -
Haslam I 231
Stereotypes/social psychology: stereotyping is a good place to try to explain social structure in cognitve terms. Among social psychologists in the 70s there was near unanimous agreement that stereotypes were intensely problematic. They were widely held to be negative, rigid and false beliefs that created social barriers and led to prejudice and discrimination. Nowhere could this be clearer than in the case of stereotypes of minority groups.
Haslam I 232
Yet social psychology had no systematic account of where these stereotypes came from.
Stereotypes: Could it be that different people come to the same conclusion because their minds work in the same way?
Solution/Gifford/Hamilton: Hamilton and Gifford 1976(1): explained stereotypes in terms of an illusory correlation. >Stereotypes/Gifford/Hamilton, >Illusory correlation/Gifford/Hamilton.
1. Hamilton, D.L. and Gifford, R.K. (1976) ‘Illusory correlation in intergroup perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12: 392–407.
Craig McGarty, „Stereotype Formation. Revisiting Hamilton and Gifford’s illusory correlation studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Philip J. Corr
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017